repo_map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the output shape (compact, most-referenced-first, includes line numbers), but says nothing about cost, truncation behavior, or what happens when the map is too large.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the output description before the usage note and the parameter hint. No filler, though the trailing 'focus:' fragment reads as a schema note tacked onto prose rather than integrated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns – it does reasonably well (files, symbols, line numbers). However, with a 12k default character budget and truncation likely, an agent gets no guidance on what is dropped or how to react, and one of three params is unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only `path` is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does explain `focus` as 'file names or symbols to prioritise', which adds real meaning, but `maxChars` and its default-truncation implications are left entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: producing a compact map of a codebase showing most-referenced files with key functions/classes/types and line numbers. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from outline or search_code at a glance, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Understand a large project in one call" implies the usage context (orientation in a big codebase), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of alternatives such as outline, project_context, or find_symbol that an agent might otherwise pick for similar goals.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.