sumo_qa_query_repo_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results are bounded and ranked, never return full artifacts, and the map is loaded from artifact_path with a live-scan fallback while artifacts for a different root are ignored.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then phrasings, then parameters. The examples list is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by clarifying the NL matching contract; the parameter paragraph is dense but well-organized.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned metadata fields (id, path, type, tags, match reason). Combined with full parameter coverage and artifact-vs-live-scan behavior, an agent has everything needed 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines root as the repository, details query matching fields and ranking behavior, explains limit caps matches while total_matches reports the full count, describes types (node types and/or the literal "command"), and the artifact_path fallback semantics.

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 (Search) and resource (the repo-map) plus the artifact classes it covers (components, tests, CI checks, configs, commands), and explicitly contrasts the bounded metadata result with 'never the full artifact'. An agent can distinguish this from sibling scan/analysis tools.

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 concrete natural-language phrasings that map to the tool, which effectively describes when to reach for it. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state an exclusion (e.g. when to use scan_repo or analyze_diff_impact instead), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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