project_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-side operation ('Read'), states output is 'compact,' and discloses the key performance trait 'without loading entity bodies'; it does not detail errors or permissions, but for a read-only mapping tool these are not major gaps.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs every listed content category and the no-body-loading constraint without filler. Each clause earns its place.

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 does not cover parameter semantics or usage context. It does list the returned project-map sections and a key behavioral constraint, so it is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer how to set arguments and what the response structure will be.

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%, and the description does not explain locale, projectRoot, or includeStructured. Only the property names and types provide any semantics, so an agent cannot learn default behaviors or acceptable values beyond the bare 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?

Opens with the verb 'Read' and a specific resource, 'compact project map,' and enumerates the distinct content sections (architecture coverage, ordered Plans, Chain paths, unplanned Blocks, checkpoint-free Blocks, missing required checkpoints), separating it from write/registry/graph tools in the sibling list.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools are given. The only contextual hint, 'without loading entity bodies,' implies lightweight inspection but does not tell an agent when to prefer project_map over siblings like graph_search or plan_context.

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