get_repo_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure with stats and warnings, caching behavior, role-specific behavior, and indicates it is read-only (compressed map). Could mention non-destructiveness more explicitly.

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 structured with bullet points and front-loads the main purpose. However, it mixes Korean and English and is somewhat verbose; could be more succinct while retaining clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately specifies the return structure (repo_map, stats with fields, warnings) and covers caching and role-specific behavior. Given the complexity (5 params, role logic), it is 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 has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully. Every parameter (repo_path, token_budget, focus_files, role, changed_files) is explained with detailed role-based behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 'retourne une carte compressée du dépôt' with specific verb and resource, and explains the role-based behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools `hello` and `refresh_cache` which are unrelated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 getting a repo map but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, e.g., for simple file retrieval.

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