describe_file

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool does not read file content, accepts partial paths, and returns annotated symbols. It could mention that it is read-only and safe, but the description is clear enough.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear function: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter behavior.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, and what the return structure looks like. It is complete for an AI agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that partial paths are accepted and giving an example ('networks.py' matches 'src/networks.py'), which is not in the schema description.

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 specifies the verb 'Describe', the resource 'file's structure', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'describe_symbol' by emphasizing it does not read the file. It clearly states what it returns: classes, functions, methods annotated with domain concepts.

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 states when to use it ('when you need to understand a file's shape'), and provides an alternative tool ('Use describe_symbol to drill into any symbol shown'). This directly helps the agent decide between sibling tools.

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