surface

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses how data is obtained ('Reads the installed package or parses the project file, so the answer is always current') and cost characteristics ('Cheap enough to re-ask'). It does not mention potential import side effects or failure modes, but provides meaningful behavioral context for a read-only introspection tool.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the tool; the second sentence gives usage guidance and cost rationale. Every clause adds value, with no wasted words.

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 is provided, but the description states the essential return contents ('every public name with its real signature and a one-line summary') and the source ('installed package or project file'). It omits precise return format and error behavior, but this is adequate for a 4-parameter introspection tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents for target, limit, private, and summaries.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the exact API of a Python module, class, or project file' and specifies the output as 'every public name with its real signature and a one-line summary.' This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from generic file-reading or verification.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this INSTEAD OF reading a file when you need to know how to call something.' It also gives a cost-benefit rationale ('5-10x fewer tokens', 'Cheap enough to re-ask') that helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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