Map the codebase

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read-only mapping operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as reporting split candidates in worst-first order and the fact that it is recursive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Recursively map') and includes all key details without extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main outputs but lacks specifics on return format (e.g., JSON structure) and error handling. The output is sufficiently described for simple mapping tools but could be more complete.

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 burden. While it mentions 'split thresholds (lines/bytes)' and 'split candidates', it does not individually explain the parameters splitBytes and splitLines (defaults, behavior). The description partially compensates by relating them to the output concept.

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 recursively maps the codebase, providing specific outputs (file count, bytes, extension counts, oversized files) and purpose (spotting oversized modules for decomposition). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_code_files by offering aggregated metrics and split candidates.

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 implies usage for codebase mapping and decomposition but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_code_files. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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