get_file_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (JSON string) and the content of the returned structure, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention error behavior, file access requirements, or potential performance limitations.

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 and structured with a clear opening summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line serves a purpose, and the main function is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists between the opening line and the Returns section, but it is not wasteful.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the input parameter, the output format, and the returned content. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, but the 'complete structure' framing makes its role fairly clear. Missing error handling and edge-case guidance, but overall it is complete enough for basic 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?

The input schema provides no description for file_path (0% coverage), so the description's 'Path to the NetCDF file' is the only semantic guidance. It correctly explains the parameter's role but lacks further detail such as accepted path formats, whether remote paths are supported, or file extension expectations, making it minimally sufficient for a single 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 uses a specific verb 'Get', names the resource as 'the complete structure of a NetCDF file', and explicitly enumerates the contents returned (dimensions, coordinates, data variables, global attributes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_variables or get_global_attributes, which focus on individual parts.

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 'complete structure' implies it is the umbrella tool for a whole-file overview, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_variable_info or get_dimension_values. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the intended scope.

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