get_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term 'previews' is vague and not explained. The description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args list is redundant with the input schema but does not harm readability. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the redundancy could be trimmed.

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 simple schema (2 string params, no output schema) and the presence of siblings, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior of 'previews', and does not provide guidance on how it relates to siblings. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists example values for provider (e.g., neoforge, fabric), which adds semantic value beyond the parameter names. However, it does not describe the format or constraints for version, and the parameter documentation remains minimal.

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 gets 'the file structure with previews for a specific version of documentation' with specific parameters. It identifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'file structure with previews'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_full_content or get_providers, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning when it is appropriate or when to use sibling tools like get_full_content. This leaves the agent without decision criteria.

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