get_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., tree structure, list). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves hierarchical data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving hierarchical structure, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral aspects, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a project binder context.

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 the input schema fully documents the two optional parameters (folderId and maxDepth). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'hierarchical structure' entails or how depth affects traversal. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'hierarchical structure of the project binder', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_compile_order' or 'search_content', which might also involve project structure queries, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'search_content' or 'find_all_mentions' that might retrieve project information, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others.

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