get_file_folded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it is AST-based, has a token budget with truncation flag, and returns signatures and JSDoc without bodies. This is thorough and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with 'STEP 3 of token-efficient exploration' to signal context. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return content, constraints, and method. It explains what is excluded (function bodies) and fallback behavior, but could mention the return format briefly.

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 context about the token budget and file path but does not provide details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It references the fallback behavior linked to token_budget, but that is already in the schema.

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 what the tool does: returns all symbols with signatures and JSDoc but no function bodies, as a folded view under a token budget. It uses specific verbs ('Returns') and defines the resource ('symbols'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_file_outline or get_symbol, though context from 'STEP 3' implies a sequence.

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 provides a usage hint ('Ideal when you need to understand a file structurally without reading every implementation') and mentions fallback behavior for budget exceeded. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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