Run tree-sitter query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the single-file constraint; it says nothing about return format, error behavior when the file is unsupported, or what 'supported' means. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though its terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry more context. It omits query syntax, supported languages, and return format, so an agent cannot reliably call this tool without prior knowledge.

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% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description adds only that the query runs against 'one supported source file' for the path, and gives no syntax or semantics for the tree-sitter query itself. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Run a tree-sitter query') and scopes it to 'one supported source file', which is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from the closest sibling get_ast_tree, which also operates on tree-sitter output, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It implies a single-file constraint via 'one supported source file' but never tells the agent how this differs from get_ast_tree or the LSP siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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