structure

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: determinism, the ~2.5x token cost of `hashes`, and the important caveat that the `doc` field is the one field NOT verified against the code.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage and scoping. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restated title.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description sketches the return shape (files + per-file symbols with name/kind/line, refs, hashes) and the cost implications of each level. That is nearly enough for correct invocation, though exact response nesting is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the cost/verbosity tradeoff across `detail` levels and the glob semantics of `paths` ('`**` matches across directories'), which is meaning an agent can act on when choosing arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a deterministic files+symbols structure of an enrolled repo's current code, which an agent can distinguish from mutation or diff tools. It does not explicitly name siblings (hash/diff/status) as things this is *not*, but the scope is concrete and unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use: 'ground claims about what functions/types/exports exist', plus scoping advice (paths globs) and guidance on selecting a detail level. It even routes a sub-case away ('body-level drift, which hash/diff/status answer far more cheaply'), but stops short of stating when not to use this tool at all.

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