Analyze a repository's tech stack, risks, key files, and recommended workflows to plan AI-assisted engineering tasks.
Map a repository's stack, risks, key files, and suggested Coeus workflows
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Root | . |
| max_depth | No | Max depth | |
| max_files | No | Max files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'map' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the repository, if it has side effects, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
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 wasted words. However, it lacks structure and important context such as output details or usage scenarios. While it is not verbose, it is under-specified, which is a different issue from conciseness.
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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites, and how to interpret the results. It does not. The description is extremely sparse and fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 100%, as each parameter has a brief description ('Root', 'Max depth', 'Max files'). The tool description adds no additional semantics about these parameters, but since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter descriptions are minimal, so the tool description could have elaborated but chose not to.
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 clearly states the tool's function: mapping a repository's stack, risks, key files, and suggested workflows. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like coeus_codebase_map or coeus_analyze_codebase, which may also map repository aspects, so it is not fully differentiated.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other analysis tools, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.