get_structure

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return content (structure) and indexing requirement, but lacks disclosure on error handling (e.g., file not found, not indexed), performance implications, or side effects. Minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second gives prerequisite. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. However, description omits edge cases (e.g., behavior for empty file, unsupported languages) and does not state that file path must be relative to project root. Adequate for a straightforward tool but leaves some gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; the only parameter 'file_path' is not described in schema. Description adds no detail about expected format (absolute/relative), restrictions, or relationship to project index. Single parameter reduces need for elaboration, but description should at least specify path type.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the structure (classes, functions) of a specific file. Verb 'Returns' and resource 'structure of a specific file' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'search_code' (searches across files) and 'get_file_summary' (likely a summary, not structural details).

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('requires the file's project to be indexed first'), which is helpful but does not guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'find_definitions' or 'get_file_summary'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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