File skeleton

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that function bodies are elided by default, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but says nothing about permissions, whether the operation is read-only, truncation behavior from max_tokens, or what the profile parameter alters.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core output (imports and headers) is front-loaded. The phrasing 'Imports and source-backed headers' is slightly awkward but compact.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. It omits parameter meanings, privacy behavior, truncation behavior, and any sense of output shape beyond the elision default.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. 'One file' weakly implies path/repo_id, and 'by default' weakly hints at profile or include_private configurability, but max_tokens, include_private, and the profile semantics remain entirely undocumented.

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 states the specific resource (one file) and what is returned (imports and source-backed headers), and distinguishes the resource from siblings like search_source or inspect_symbol by naming the skeleton concept. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling set.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_symbol, get_symbol_context, or search_source. The agent must infer that a file skeleton is preferred over symbol-level or source-text tools, which is not stated.

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