summarize_project_structure

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose two useful traits: results are shallow/bounded and no file contents are read, implying a cheap metadata-only scan. It does not cover depth behavior, exclusions, ordering, or what happens at the file cap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key qualifier ("without reading file contents") front and center. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits information an agent genuinely needs rather than merely being compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but for a project-inventory tool the description omits recursion depth, whether hidden/vendor directories are included, and how max_files truncation is surfaced. Those gaps are material to calling it correctly.

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 single parameter max_files has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does not name the parameter at all. "Bounded" only vaguely gestures at a limit; there is no explanation of the default of 100, whether truncation occurs, or how excess files are reported.

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 gives a verb ("Return") and the concept of a "shallow, bounded inventory," which loosely aligns with the tool name's "project structure." However, it never says explicitly that it lists files/directories, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_directory, glob, or search_workspace_text, so the agent must infer the resource from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite many overlapping siblings (list_directory, glob, grep). The phrase "without reading file contents" hints at a cheap discovery use case, but it is not framed as routing guidance.

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