get_struct_members

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by documenting the returned member fields in detail, which is especially valuable because no output schema exists. It still does not discuss error behavior or any path-resolution constraints, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose, immediately followed by the sibling relationship, and then a structured Returns block. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what is returned, the second gives operational context, and the return shape compensates for the missing output schema.

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 one-parameter read tool, the definition is complete: the required parameter is fully documented in the schema, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the return structure that would otherwise be absent without an output schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'struct_path' is already documented in the schema as the full asset path of the UUserDefinedStruct. The description does not add any new syntax, format, or constraint information for that parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('members of a user-defined struct (UUserDefinedStruct)'), and the exact member details returned (type, default value, flags). It also identifies itself as the reader paired with add_struct_member, which distinguishes it from that write sibling.

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?

It provides implied usage by saying it 'pairs with add_struct_member', so an agent knows this is the read counterpart to that write tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over other read siblings such as get_struct_info or get_struct_member_details, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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