projects.map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, the max_lines cap, the est_tokens and warning fields, and the defaults for include_tags and show_titles. This is rich behavioral context. It doesn't describe the exact output format beyond 'compact indented outline', but the description covers the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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, token savings, read-only safety, cap/warning behavior, project_id semantics, defaults, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, and the usage guidance is at the end. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only outline tool with 4 optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how it behaves, its limits, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the exact output format, but the description's 'compact indented outline' plus the schema's parameter descriptions are sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context for project_id (null = KB only, omit = everything) and mentions defaults for include_tags and show_titles, which slightly exceeds the schema. However, the schema already covers these, so the description adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('compact indented outline of folders, file titles, tags, and IDs'), and a clear scope ('single dense block'). It also distinguishes itself from files.list by noting the token savings, and from files.search by noting the orientation use case. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use to orient yourself in an unfamiliar vault or project; for keyword lookup use files.search.' It also explains the project_id semantics (null = KB only, omit = everything), which is a usage guideline. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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