get_file_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value ('symbol names with line numbers') but does not mention limitations, error behavior, or whether it scans recursively. The description is truthful but minimal.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core functionality and return value, the second gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 overview tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and usage context. It could mention output structure or unsupported file types, but it is largely complete for the tool's scope.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (path, server, language) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 opens with 'Get an overview of functions, classes and key definitions in a source file', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file (whole file content) and search_in_file (text matching) by focusing on structural symbols.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand a large file before reading or editing specific sections.' This gives a clear context without enumerating exclusions or alternatives, but it is sufficient guidance.

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