analyze_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns an AST summary but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., format, depth, or limitations like the 'limit' parameter's effect). It also omits critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, or error handling, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single sentence: 'Returns structural summary (AST) of code.' It wastes no words and immediately communicates the core function. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, output, and resource.

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 complexity of analyzing code structure with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON AST), how parameters affect the output, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool that likely produces detailed data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters ('code', 'filePath', 'limit'), such as their purposes, interactions, or constraints (e.g., 'limit' defaults to 50). This leaves the agent guessing about how to use these inputs effectively, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns structural summary (AST) of code.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('structural summary'), and clarifies the output type ('AST'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_call_graph' or 'list_functions' which might also provide structural insights, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_call_graph' and 'list_functions' that might overlap in analyzing code structure, there's no indication of when 'analyze_structure' is preferred or what specific aspects it covers (e.g., AST vs. call graphs). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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