get_project_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool lists (read-only) and details the content, but does not explicitly declare it is read-only or discuss any potential side effects. This is sufficient given the tool's nature.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates all essential information without unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete overview of what the tool returns, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and output 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?

The schema has zero parameters, and the description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what is returned, meeting the baseline for 0-parameter tools. No parameter detail is needed.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'program structure' are clear. It specifies exactly what is listed (tasks, scan settings, sections, IEC language, counts) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_hardware' or 'get_language_reference' by focusing on the overall structure.

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 implicitly states when to use (when you need to list the program structure), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. However, the context is clear, warranting a 4.

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