bw_get_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (non-destructive) and details the specific data returned, providing good behavioral insight. However, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, though as a read operation, those are less critical.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences that convey the tool's purpose and return value without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could add more on output structure or dependencies, but overall adequate.

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 a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context ('global Structure at CompositeProvider level') but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's description ('Technical name of the Structure'). The example 'STR_NAME' is helpful.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('global Structure'), and the scope ('at CompositeProvider level'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bw_get_ckf or bw_get_rkf. It also lists what is returned (ordered member list, types, referenced components, filters, dependency graph).

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 usage when a structure needs to be read, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for other get operations, but no guidance is provided.

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