analyze_structure

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, read-only behavior, return format, or error cases. The description covers the core function but leaves behavioral expectations implicit.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant wording. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 analysis tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details about the output format, return value, or potential errors, and it provides no usage context relative to sibling tools.

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 only parameter, path, is described as an absolute path to the project directory. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's type and title, though additional constraints or examples would make it even clearer.

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 summarizes project folder structure—files, languages, folders, and dependency graph scale—using a specific verb ('요약한다'). It is distinguishable from siblings like generate_dependency_diagram or extract_dependency_graph, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor are prerequisites or appropriate contexts mentioned. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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