get_struct_info_simple

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 only states it's a 'simple function' to 'get' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'basic structure information' includes, whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or how it behaves (e.g., error handling, return format). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, making it easy to parse, but it lacks depth that might justify more content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns data. It doesn't explain what 'basic structure information' entails, such as fields or metadata, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. For a read operation with minimal structured data, this gap reduces usability.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Name of the structure'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Simple function to get basic structure information' restates the tool name 'get_struct_info_simple' without adding specificity. It uses the verb 'get' and resource 'structure information' but doesn't clarify what 'basic' means or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_struct_at_address' or 'get_defined_structures'. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'analyze_struct_detailed' or 'get_struct_at_address' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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