Scans a repository root and returns a compact QA summary with node, test-edge, command, and warning counts; optionally writes the full repo-map JSON to a file.
Scan the repository at root and return a compact summary of its QA
shape (node, test-edge, command and warning counts). write_to also
writes the full repo-map JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | ||
| write_to | No | ||
| generator_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.42.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it says the normal return is a compact summary with specific count categories, and that `write_to` changes behavior by writing the full repo-map JSON. It does not discuss permissions, performance, or failure behavior, but the annotations carry much of the safety profile.
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 two sentences, front-loads the main action and return value, and has no wasted wording. The parenthetical count list adds useful detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the summary return values and the `write_to` side effect. However, it omits `generator_version` entirely and does not describe the structure of the full repo-map JSON or any failure conditions. It is adequate but incomplete for correct invocation.
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 must compensate for all three parameters. It explains `root` as the repository to scan and explains that `write_to` writes the full repo-map JSON, but `generator_version` is not mentioned at all. That is partial compensation, not full coverage.
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 specific verb and resource: scan the repository at `root` and return a compact QA-shape summary. It lists the exact counts included, so the purpose is clear. It does not distinguish this from the related sibling `sumo_qa_query_repo_map`, which is a notable sibling-differentiation gap.
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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of `sumo_qa_query_repo_map` or other repo-analysis siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria for invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.