skeleton

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does NOT read the full body, and it specifies the exact output elements (function names, parameters, return types, line ranges). This is transparent about its behavior, though it doesn't mention error handling or behavior on non-code files.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and outcome. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (function signatures, methods, types, line ranges) and the key constraint (not reading full body). It lacks details about edge cases, but for the tool's simplicity, it's nearly complete.

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 single parameter 'file_path' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't add much parameter-specific meaning. It simply refers to 'specific file' which is redundant with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 clearly states the tool's function: extracting function signatures, class methods, and type definitions from a file without reading the full body. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'symbol' and 'outline' by emphasizing the API surface focus and the explicit avoidance of loading full file contents.

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 a clear use case: 'Perfect for understanding how to use code without loading it all.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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