get_file_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the read-only-ish summary behavior and the special handling of .razor/.cshtml via source-generated C# documents. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify anything, nor does it mention any error or compilation-trigger side effects.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancies. The function is stated first, the use case second, and the edge case for markup files last. Every sentence contributes necessary information in a well-ordered, efficient format.

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?

The description explains the return contents (types and diagnostics), the input types, and the generated-source behavior, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool without an output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about what is returned for invalid paths, but that is a minor gap.

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% and the only parameter already documents 'Full path to the source file (.cs, or .razor/.cshtml)'. The description adds a little context for markup resolution, but that is more behavioral than parameter-level detail, so the schema already carries most of the semantic weight.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get a summary of a C# file' with explicit contents (types and diagnostics). This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_type_overview and get_diagnostics, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'quickly understanding a file's contents without reading it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to decide when it applies.

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