Summarize Lampa repo layout

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the result is a single markdown report rather than JSON, that `subfolder` triggers a recursive JS/TS-only listing, that matching is case-sensitive, and that an empty result is a valid answer rather than an error. It also covers error cases and transport/auth constraints that the annotations do not provide.

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 purpose and return format are front-loaded, and every clause carries useful information. The description is dense and semicolon-heavy, which slightly reduces readability, but it does not waste space on redundant or irrelevant 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return format, parameter behavior, error cases, and auth/transport constraints. With a rich output schema and annotations already present, this is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: omitting `subfolder` produces the compact overview, while supplying it adds a recursive JS/TS-only listing under a case-sensitive path prefix. It also clarifies that unknown folders or missing repos produce errors and that empty results are valid.

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 and resource: "Summarize the Lampa snapshot," and enumerates the exact contents: commit metadata, top-level folders, plugins, entrypoints, and npm scripts. It clearly distinguishes the tool from `read_source`, `search_code`, and `find_files`.

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 states the intended use case as "first-session orientation" and explicitly lists when not to use it, naming the sibling tools for reading bytes, searching contents, and listing files. It also explains how to choose between the compact overview and the `subfolder` listing.

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