project_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it meets it thoroughly. It discloses read-only status, no side effects, no auth or rate limits, the `max_lines` cap, the `est_tokens` report, the warning-field behavior above `KONTEXTA_PROJECT_TOKEN_WARN`, and default values for flags. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what any structured field could infer.

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 compact yet information-dense—four sentences cover purpose, benefit, safety profile, output limits, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately conveys value with the token-saving comparison. No sentence is wasted; every clause adds useful information.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must convey what the tool returns and how it behaves. It does: it describes the output form ('compact indented outline'), the included fields, the token estimate/warning mechanism, and the parameter options. Combined with explicit usage guidance and alternatives, the description is complete for an agent to safely and correctly 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?

Although the input schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the null/omit distinction for `project_id` ('KB only' vs. 'everything') and states the defaults for `include_tags=true` and `show_titles=true`. This directly aids an agent in choosing correct parameter values, exceeding schema-level explanations.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a compact indented outline of folders, file titles, tags, and IDs in a single dense block.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it uses substantially fewer tokens than the equivalent `list_files` JSON and by contrasting with `search` for keyword lookup. This makes the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to orient yourself in an unfamiliar vault or project' and tells when not to use it: 'for keyword lookup use `search`.' It also clarifies nuanced selection behavior with `project_id: null` vs. omitted vs. a specific project, which serves as concrete usage guidance.

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