get_file_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured summary (imports, exports, classes, functions, variables) and implies it is non-destructive ('replaces reading'). It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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?

Description is well-structured with a bold key phrase, bullet-pointed return fields, and a clear usage flow. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. It is concise yet thorough.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a detailed list of return categories (imports, exports, etc.), compensating fully. The tool is simple (2 params) and the description covers purpose, usage, and output comprehensively.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds value beyond schema. It explains the default for include_edges ('default: true') and its performance trade-off ('Set false for faster results'), which aids parameter selection.

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's purpose: 'Understand what a file does without reading it — shows structure and relationships from the graph.' It uses a specific verb ('understand') and resource ('file'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first step for file understanding.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS FIRST when you need to understand a file' and 'After this, use get_context with specific node IDs to deep-dive into relationships.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-to-use-next guidance, distinguishing from alternatives.

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