get_file_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses what the tool returns and assures efficiency by not reading the whole file. It doesn't mention potential side effects or limitations (e.g., file size limits), but for a read-only summary tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundant phrasing.

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 simple tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return elements and the practical benefit. It could mention edge cases or how the excerpt is selected, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the distinction between repoPath and filePath. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a structural summary of a single file, enumerating specific contents (line count, function/class count, imports, excerpt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repo_structure (whole repository) and get_dependency_graph (relationships).

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 phrase 'without needing to read the whole file' gives a clear usage context: use this for a quick overview rather than fetching entire file contents. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool names provide implicit contrast.

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