get_project_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only mentions analysis of structure but does not specify if the tool is read-only, modifies state, or any side effects. It lacks details on output format or how deep the analysis goes, making behavior opaque.

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 sentence that is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Analyze'. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the scope, but overall it is efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the general purpose. It lacks details on return values, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., Node.js project). The description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only 20%, meaning only rootDir has a description in the schema. The tool's description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., includeRoutes, maxDepth). The description does not explain the semantics of boolean flags or depth constraints, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool analyzes the frontend project structure, specifically routes, modules, and config files. It clearly indicates what the tool does but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like check_i18n_issues or generate_api_types, which are semantically distinct, so no confusion arises. However, the lack of differentiation slightly reduces the top score.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing project structure but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned. The usage context is clear but not deeply prescriptive.

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