get_repo_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output (tree plus totals) but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, recursive behavior, or performance implications. Adequate for a simple read operation, but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a usage recommendation. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The mention of 'plus totals' clarifies the return content, making it complete for an orientation utility.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter repoPath, and the description adds no additional nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 folder/file tree plus aggregate totals (file count, lines of code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as an orientation tool before deeper analysis.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Use this first to get oriented before drilling into individual files,' giving a clear usage context. Does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the guidance implies when it is appropriate relative to deeper analysis tools.

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