get_project_structure

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state that, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., an open project) or performance implications. Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious read 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, focused sentence that leads with the action ('List the program structure') and then specifies the exact return elements. No filler, no redundancy, and perfectly efficient for the agent to scan.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return values: tasks, scan settings, sections with IEC language, and counts. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but for a read-only overview tool these are minor; the core information is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything (100% coverage). Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. No ambiguity exists.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('program structure'), then enumerates the exact contents: tasks with scan settings, sections with IEC language, and counts of events and functional modules. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_status or list_variables, which serve different purposes.

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. It merely describes functionality without mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer when to call it, which is a notable gap.

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