get_structure_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation scope and the file-omitted behavior, but says nothing about output shape (names vs. full source, depth of detail), which matters for a summary tool with no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste and the most important distinction (file vs. project scope) front-loaded. It is tight, though arguably too terse for the amount of sibling overlap it needs to resolve.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the burden of explaining what the summary actually returns. It enumerates the categories but not their form or granularity, and it leaves the relationship to the individual get_functions/get_classes/get_imports tools unexplained.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'omit for project-level summary' behavior that the description restates. No additional syntax, defaults, or path-format detail is added beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific resource (file/project structure) and enumerates what it surfaces (functions, classes, imports, line counts), plus the scope switch when file is omitted. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_functions, get_classes, get_imports, or get_project_summary, which cover overlapping ground.

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 only usage cue is the parameter-driven 'or project-wide if file omitted', which is about scope rather than tool selection. With four closely related siblings (get_functions, get_classes, get_imports, get_project_summary), an agent gets no guidance on when this aggregate view beats calling the individual tools.

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