map_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the default parent branch, which is already stated in the schema, and omits mutation semantics such as whether existing nodes are updated, conflict handling, permission requirements, and side effects for a batch write operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the default parent placement rule. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a complex batch mutation tool with nested nodes, links, files, and change records, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is quite thin for that complexity, leaving key behavioral questions unanswered, such as update-vs-create semantics and conflict handling, even though it does cover the default branch behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references parentId and parentKey default behavior, but that information is already present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so the description adds no meaningful semantic depth beyond structured fields.

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 ('Batch-map') and resource ('high-level understanding and mental model of the codebase (HLD)'), and enumerates what is included: components, data flows, decisions, hypotheses, risks, and directed links. It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-node siblings like add_node and link_nodes through 'batch', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 default parent placement when parentId or parentKey is omitted, but that is behavioral detail rather than usage guidance. It never states when to use this tool instead of add_node, link_nodes, or create_mindmap, nor does it give any preconditions or exclusions.

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