cgis_overview

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a strong job: it lists what the JSON contains, warns that listings are capped and packages_omitted may appear, and explains a non-obvious omission (entry points) plus its rationale. It stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is side-effect-free or how it behaves on an empty/missing graph, but the delivered context is well above the baseline.

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 front-loaded with the most important guidance — where to start and what it returns — and every sentence adds value, from the cap behavior to the deliberate omission of entry points. It is compact for the amount of context it conveys and keeps the agent's workflow front and center.

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 that an output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented, the description covers the remaining decision-relevant context: what to expect, how to route results into sibling tools, that listings are bounded, and why certain data is intentionally absent. An agent has enough to call this tool correctly and interpret its output meaningfully.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about how returned prefixes connect to other tools, but it does not clarify depth, limit, or db_path semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema covers all parameters, this is an appropriate score.

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 opens with a concrete definition — 'sizes and a package map' — and clearly states the tool's role as the starting point in an unfamiliar graph. It names the exact outputs (symbol counts, file/edge totals, unresolved-edge ratio, largest packages) and explicitly frames itself against the other cgis_* tools by saying it is the one that provides the names they need. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Call this first in an unfamiliar repository.' It also explains the workflow relationship by stating that every other tool needs a name and pointing out that each returned prefix feeds into cgis_get_structure, cgis_find_symbol, or cgis_metrics. It even includes a deliberate exclusion — entry points are not reported — with reasoning, which helps an agent avoid misinterpreting missing incoming edges.

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