Summarize Lampa repo layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that an empty result is valid, unknown folders or missing repos error, and that stdio requires LAMPA_REPO_PATH while the Worker PAT is transport-only. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, exclusions, parameter behavior, error semantics, and environment requirements. The key scoping information is front-loaded before the technical details.

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?

With an output schema already present, the description need not explain return values. It covers when to use the tool, how to choose between overview and recursive modes, error conditions, environment setup for stdio, and authorization constraints for the Worker PAT. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents subfolder with 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable semantics: subfolder produces a recursive JS/TS-only listing on top of the same overview, and an empty result is meaningful rather than an error. This supplements the schema without merely repeating it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('Lampa snapshot'), enumerates what is included (commit metadata, top-level folders, plugins, entrypoints, npm scripts), and states the intended use ('first-session orientation'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming read_source, search_code, and find_files as tools not to use instead.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context, names the alternatives to avoid, and explains the conditional subfolder parameter behavior. The guidance about omitting subfolder for the compact overview and adding it for a recursive JS/TS listing leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool.

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