get_file_skeleton

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

With no annotations, the description effectively conveys the tool's read-only nature through 'Retrieves' and 'outline'. It discloses the token-optimization and depth behaviors, and mentions the summary_only parameter's condition. It could mention potential errors or scope limits, but for a retrieval tool it is sufficient.

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 concise with three sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, all documented), the description covers the key behaviors and usage. The presence of an output schema offloads return value details, and the description does not need to explain it. It is complete for a retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical meaning of depth values (orientation vs analysis vs full) and that summary_only applies only at depth=0. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 retrieves a token-optimized outline of a file's code units with line numbers. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'outline of file's code units', and the phrase 'token-optimized' distinguishes it from full source retrieval like view_file_source.

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 explicit guidance on how to use the depth parameter for different purposes (orientation, analysis, full detail). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to siblings like search_code_skeletons, the depth guidance is practical and clear.

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