get_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and largely satisfies it by detailing the return payload, the compact-versus-full behavior (content_md), and the distinct workspace modes. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or side-effect absence, though this is strongly implied by 'overview' and 'architecture map.'

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a structured list of outputs, then usage guidance, then parameter details. Each sentence adds information — no filler or repetition — and the section breaks make it scannable despite the length.

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?

Given the output schema exists but no annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool returns, when to use it versus alternatives, how to get more detail, and workspace-specific behavior. It fully equips an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: repo is fully explained with alias/path/ID and the 'all' special value, and include is detailed with 'content' and 'outline' options plus the resulting behavior in content_md. This far exceeds the bare schema type/nullable/default information.

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 opening line 'Architecture map for an unfamiliar repo — first call when you don't know your way around' clearly identifies the tool's purpose and establishes it as an entry point. It then enumerates the specific returned content (overview, wiki outline, key modules, entry points, git health, knowledge map, community summary), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_context and get_answer.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'first call when you don't know your way around' and 'Skip this on subsequent calls — once you have the map, jump straight to get_context / get_answer.' The workspace mode instructions specify when to omit repo, use 'all', or target an alias, leaving no ambiguity about appropriate use cases.

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