project_map

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output structure (one record per module/definition, fields, text vs JSON) but says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, authentication, performance, or rate limits. For a query tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the output contract then parameter behavior. No filler; every clause carries information and the structure is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does list the record contents and format options. It lacks details on nested field shapes, but for a 2-parameter read-only map tool the coverage is sufficient.

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 100% and both parameters are documented. The description adds useful context: json yields the JSON shape of `renyi index --json` versus the default one-line-per-definition text, and module narrows to one module. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 names the artifact ('project map of the served directory') and enumerates the per-definition fields it returns (signature, purpose, effects, failures, edges, metrics, content hash), giving a specific scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like definition or effects, but the breadth of records distinguishes it as the whole-project map.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are offered. The second sentence only explains parameter effects (module narrowing, json shape), not when to choose this tool over definition, effects, or chunks.

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