get_file_skeleton

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only explains the tool's purpose but does not mention security, performance, side effects, or whether it is read-only. The agent lacks information about safety and constraints.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, very concise and to the point. It avoids redundancy, though it could benefit from including usage context without being verbose.

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 has an output schema and the description conveys the core functionality (extracting skeleton), it is reasonably complete. However, it omits details about error conditions (e.g., file not found) and performance characteristics, which would push it to a 5.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both 'file_path' and 'format' parameters already described. The tool description does not add further meaning to these parameters, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional value.

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 it retrieves classes and function signatures without bodies, indicating a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_skeletons' or 'get_symbols', which may have overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a 5.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It solely states the tool's function without contextual usage advice.

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