get_file_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns function names, parameters, return types, and class hierarchies, and that the path matching is case-insensitive. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds value beyond the schema but lacks depth for a fully transparent disclosure.

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 concise, with about 4 sentences and a bullet for the argument. It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, usage context, and a clear parameter definition. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, how the parameter works with examples, and the nature of results. It adequately covers the necessary context for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds extensive meaning to the file_path parameter: it explains it is a substring match, case-insensitive, provides examples ('models', 'api/routes', '.py', 'utils'), and clarifies that empty string matches all files. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves function and class signatures from files matching a path. It specifies the resource (file signatures) and action (get). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_codebase by noting it provides more structured information (exact interface) than semantic search.

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 says 'Use this to understand the API surface of a module without reading every file' and contrasts it with semantic search ('More structured than semantic search'). This provides clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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