get_codebase_structure

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

It discloses key behaviors: recursive scanning and respecting .gitignore, which are non-obvious and helpful. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'scan and return', but does not explicitly state that no files are modified or mention performance limits. With no annotations, this is moderately 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?

One sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with 'Recursively scan' and no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and the output schema handles return values, so those aspects are complete. However, it omits how the optional workspace_path behaves when null or unset, leaving a gap for a parameter-driven tool. A brief note on default path would complete it.

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 schema provides no description for workspace_path (0% coverage). The description only refers to 'workspace directory', which essentially restates the parameter name without explaining behavior when null, required format, or default path. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's action ('recursively scan workspace directory') and output ('file tree and dependencies'), while also specifying respect for .gitignore. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_workspace_path, process_video, and write_obsidian_note, which have different purposes.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so usage context is only implied by the action itself. Given sibling tools, this could benefit from a simple 'use this when you need to explore the codebase layout'.

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