get_file_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the main output content (symbol table, imports, exports) and a notable exclusion (not returning file body). However, it does not mention prerequisites like requiring the file to already be indexed or what happens when the file is missing.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and contents, then adds the clarifying exclusion. Every part contributes to understanding the 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description alone is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool. It explains what is returned but not parameter semantics, indexing prerequisites, or error behavior, leaving important 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain 'path' or 'repo_root' semantics. While 'single indexed file' loosely ties 'path' to a file location, 'repo_root' remains unexplained, and no format, relative/absolute path guidance, or repository boundary details are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('symbol table... imports, and exports') for a single indexed file. It clearly conveys what the tool does and even specifies what it doesn't do ('without returning the entire file body'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_relevant_context or get_repo_overview.

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 phrase 'for a single indexed file' implies the tool is for per-file summaries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_code, get_dependencies, or get_relevant_context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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