Generate a large-context architecture map for a directory or set of files, providing a clear overview of code structure.
Produce a large-context architecture map for a directory or @file set
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | No | Focus | |
| model | No | Model | |
| ignore | No | Ignore | |
| target | Yes | Target |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, read-only nature, or output characteristics. It does not clarify what 'large-context' implies or what the result is.
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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity leaves critical details unaddressed.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know how to fill parameters or interpret results, making the tool difficult to use 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?
The description does not explain any parameters. The schema descriptions are merely single-word labels ('Focus', 'Model', 'Ignore', 'Target') that provide no meaningful semantics, and the description does not compensate for this lack of clarity.
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 clear verb ('Produce') and a specific resource ('architecture map') for a directory or @file set. It is unambiguous in intent, but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as coeus_analyze_codebase, which may also analyze codebases.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or when to prefer other tools like coeus_stats or coeus_analyze.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.