repo_map

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful context about token efficiency and scale, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires indexing, or what the output structure looks like. This is partial coverage beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short fragments with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and ends with a practical usage hint.

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 provides the core mapping concept and a key usage tip, but lacks explicit information about return format, side effects, or prerequisites like reindexing. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the combined usage tip 'focused+relevantEntities for token efficiency', which is not present in the schema and explains how to use two parameters together for a specific purpose.

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 'Project code map: files ↔ symbols', indicating a mapping operation between files and symbols. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a repository-scale overview ('For 100+ file codebases'), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with symbol_search or dep_graph.

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 phrase 'For 100+ file codebases' implies intended use on large repositories, which provides some context. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use, and the 'focused+relevantEntities' tip is about parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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