getTopLevelDeclarationNames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs 'Fast analysis' and works 'without needing IDE server', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, error handling, or performance characteristics beyond speed.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and scope, the second adds important behavioral context about speed and server requirements. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and some behavioral aspects, but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of strings) or potential edge cases, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which already explains the 'filePath' and 'code' parameters and their mutual exclusivity).

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 specific action ('List all main definitions'), resource ('PureScript code'), and scope ('just the names'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getTopLevelDeclarations' by specifying it only returns names, not full declarations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Fast analysis without needing IDE server'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for quick name extraction versus more detailed analysis tools.

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