get_project_structure

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe and repeatable nature of the operation is covered. The description adds little beyond this, but it does clarify that the tool reads a project's file structure and does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 context is fairly simple: one required parameter, safe annotations, and an output schema. However, the description lacks important details about how to specify project_path and what makes the file structure 'relevant,' so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 only the parameter name and type, with 0% description coverage. The tool description suggests project_path refers to an OpenPLC Editor project, but it does not specify whether it should be a directory path, a file path, absolute or relative, creating ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('the relevant file structure of an OpenPLC Editor project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_server_info and list_pous. However, the word 'relevant' is vague and leaves unclear what subset of the file structure is included.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when get_server_info or list_pous would be more appropriate, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing a valid project directory.

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