sumo_qa_query_repo_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: ranking (exact identity above substring hits), limit behavior (total_matches still reports full count), types restriction, and fallback logic for artifact_path (live scan if missing, ignores wrong project root). This fully discloses operational behavior.

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 approximately 150 words, well-organized into paragraphs and a bullet-like list of examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, parameters, and output (metadata fields like id, path, type, tags, match reason). It lacks details on response structure or pagination for large result sets, but the limit parameter and mention of bounded ranked list suffice. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Overall, it is well-rounded and sufficient for the complexity.

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 carries the full burden. It explains all five parameters: root, query (case-insensitive matching across multiple fields), limit (caps matches), types (restricts to node types or 'command'), and artifact_path (default, fallback, and ignore condition). Additionally, it describes default values and behavior, compensating fully for missing schema descriptions.

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 it searches the repo-map for specific items (components, tests, CI checks, etc.) and returns metadata to open files directly, never the full artifact. It includes natural language examples and distinguishes from potential siblings by specifying the bounded, ranked list output.

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 natural-language phrasings that map to the tool, implying appropriate usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like sumo_qa_scan_repo, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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