get_intents_for_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the function is to 'Get' intents, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly declare it as non-destructive or disclose any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The description adds moderate value beyond the tool name.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose statement, followed by a bullet list of use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and use cases. It partially compensates for lack of output schema by listing return fields (author, status, line ranges). However, it could be more complete about which parameters are required vs. optional, but schema covers that.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add any additional explanation or context for individual parameters, leaving it at baseline.

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 'Get all intents that have code blocks in this file,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_intents_for_lines' which targets specific lines, not the whole file.

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 explicitly advises to use before modifying a file, listing three specific use cases (see progress, identify conflicts, understand context). While it doesn't cover when to avoid or mention alternative tools, the context is clear and actionable.

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