summarize_file

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

The description discloses more than the tool name by mentioning symbols, relations, and codebase role, giving the agent a sense of what the summary will contain. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it omits whether the operation is read-only, how the target file is selected, and what output shape the agent should expect.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and names the semantic content. There is no filler, boilerplate, or repetition of already-visible schema information.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is a workable minimal explanation but leaves key contextual details out: return format, how the file is chosen, and what exactly 'role in the codebase' covers. It is sufficiently clear for the obvious use case but not complete enough for edge cases or alternatives.

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?

With zero declared parameters and a schema that only allows additional properties, there is no parameter meaning for the description to expand on. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description provides enough conceptual context. It could mention how to specify the file, but that is a context gap rather than a parameter-semantic one.

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 uses the specific verb 'Summarize' and names the resource clearly: 'a file's symbols, relations and role in the codebase.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like symbol_search, get_context, and analyze_impact, which focus on different retrieval or analysis tasks.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not contrast summarize_file with sibling tools such as get_context or analyze_impact, so the agent gets no help deciding when this tool is preferable over those alternatives.

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