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 safety, and the description adds real behavioral value on top: matching is case-insensitive across listed fields, results are ranked and capped at `limit`, `total_matches` reports the full count, and the whole map is never returned. It omits where the map comes from and what happens if the artifact is absent, which is the missing piece for a 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the verb and resource, then layers matching semantics, result capping, and the `types` filter. Every clause carries information; slightly run-on, but no filler.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the search semantics well but leaves `root`, `artifact_path`, and the map's existence dependency unexplained. An agent could invoke it, but might not know how to point it at the right map.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains `query` (case-insensitive over ids/paths/names/types/tags), `limit` (cap with `total_matches` for the full count), and `types` (node type or 'command'). It says nothing about `root` or `artifact_path`, leaving 2 of 5 parameters semantically undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('repo-map') and an explicit enumeration of what can be matched (components, tests, CI checks, configs, commands) and over which fields (ids, paths, names, types, tags). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sumo_qa_scan_repo, which likely builds the map this tool queries, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clause 'never the whole map' implies this is for targeted lookups rather than exhaustive enumeration, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisite is stated (e.g., whether sumo_qa_scan_repo must run first to produce the map). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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