ast-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's read-only (explicitly stated), returns a formatted outline with line numbers, and handles multiple programming languages. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, error handling, or performance considerations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting (bulleted-like sections) enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter context effectively. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, and the description adequately addresses the tool's role among many editing-focused siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example showing 'file_path' usage with an absolute path format, adding practical meaning beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't detail path requirements (e.g., relative vs. absolute) or supported file extensions.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Return a formatted outline') and resources ('all top-level functions, classes, and methods in a source file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on structural overview rather than editing or specific symbol operations. It explicitly mentions supported languages (Python, JS, TS, C, C++) and includes line numbers.

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 explicit usage guidelines with 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' sections, specifying contexts (editing unfamiliar files to see structure) and alternatives (when exact target names are known). It even includes a strong recommendation ('ALWAYS a good first call before editing') to reinforce proper usage.

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