get_file_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a symbol outline (structural overview) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not detail side effects, error conditions, or behavior for very large files. The limit parameter is mentioned but not fully contextualized.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word adds value, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete. It states purpose, usage hint, and the limit parameter is documented in schema. It could mention that imports are excluded, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 only 50% (limit has a description, path does not). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The path parameter is required but left undescribed; adding 'path to the file' would improve clarity.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'symbol outline of a file', listing examples like classes, functions, methods. It also distinguishes from reading the whole file, and implicitly from sibling tools like get_node_info or search_symbols.

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 explicitly advises 'Use instead of reading the whole file when you only need structure', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names provide additional orientation.

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