projects_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 does so: it declares read-only, no side effects/auth/rate limits, discloses the max_lines cap, and reveals that the response includes est_tokens and may emit a warning field past KONTEXTA_PROJECT_TOKEN_WARN. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read tool and covers cost/truncation behavior an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then behavior, then defaults, then the routing hint. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the sentence is packed enough that a reader must parse multiple clauses before reaching the 'use this when' guidance at the end.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses the return shape (indented outline, est_tokens, warning field) and the truncation cap, plus scope and default behavior. For a 4-parameter, fully-defaulted read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by restating defaults (include_tags=true, show_titles=true, max_lines=5000) and clarifying that project_id null means KB-only while omission means everything — a subtle distinction an agent could easily get wrong from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return a compact indented outline of folders, file titles, tags, and IDs.' It also names the sibling it contrasts with (files_list's JSON) and explicitly distinguishes its output format from that alternative, so an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('to orient yourself in an unfamiliar vault or project') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('for keyword lookup use files_search'). It further clarifies scope selection via project_id null vs omitted semantics.

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