Get AST tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that output is 'depth-limited' and applies to 'one supported source file'. It does not say which languages are supported, what happens on an unsupported file, or whether large files are truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key artifact and constraint lead. It is arguably too sparse rather than bloated, but the sentence itself 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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent lacks the supported-language list, default depth, and the meaning of includeText needed to call it reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. 'Depth-limited' loosely gestures at maxDepth and 'one source file' at path, but includeText is never mentioned, and no defaults, units, or formats are given.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific artifact ('tree-sitter AST'), and a scope ('one supported source file'). No sibling tool returns a raw AST, so the agent can distinguish it, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the symbol/summary tools it could be confused with.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings like summarize_file, list_symbols, or lsp_document_symbols, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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