System map

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

Annotations already signal mutating and destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: content replaces the entire previous version, empty string clears, append-only maps rot, reading never creates a neuron while writing does, and credentials are redacted on write. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Dense but efficient: every sentence earns its place, covering function, alternatives, behavior, and usage timing. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Complete for a read/write tool: read semantics, write semantics, deletion via empty string, creation side effects, credential redaction, relationship to siblings, and when to use are all covered. No output schema exists, but the description adequately states what a read returns.

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%, and the field descriptions already explain omit-to-read, replace-whole, and empty-clears. The description mostly reinforces these, adding only slight nuance like 'map:null if none'. Useful, but not substantial 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?

States a clear verb-resource pair: 'Read or replace a neuron's system map'. It also differentiates from crbro_inspect by explaining that crbro_inspect view=neuron already returns the map and crbro_map is for reading it alone or rewriting it.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: read the map before working on a system touched in past sessions, rewrite it after changing the system, and keep atomic facts in crbro_learn instead. It also names crbro_inspect as the alternative for map access within a broader inspection.

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