get_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does signal read-only behavior via "Return" and limits scope via max_depth, and it explains that values are elided — useful behavioral context. It says nothing about failure modes (unknown alias, malformed path, out-of-range depth) or whether the tree is truncated, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then cleanly separated into Args and Returns. The Args section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the text is short and every sentence contributes parameter or return meaning.

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 3-parameter read-only inspection tool with an output schema already declared, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, all three parameter meanings, and the elided-values behavior are covered. The only missing piece is error/edge-case behavior on bad alias or path.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: alias is the loaded document's identifier, path is dot/bracket notation with empty string meaning root, and max_depth controls levels shown with a default of 3. Only minor gaps remain (path escaping, alias validity rules), but every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare 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 gives a specific verb and resource — "Return a schema-like skeleton of a JSON document showing keys and types" — which is concrete and distinct from a raw dump. The added clause about understanding nested shapes "without viewing all the actual data" further separates it from siblings like get_value or get_keys, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 line "Useful for understanding the shape of deeply nested JSON without viewing all the actual data" implies the usage context, and the max_depth framing suggests exploration rather than extraction. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_keys, describe, distinct_paths, or get_type, nor does it give any when-not guidance.

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