module_summary

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the return contents (symbols, imports, dependents) and that dependency info comes from the call graph. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, and it avoids restating schema information or fluff.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return areas (symbols, imports, dependents), usage timing, and sibling distinctions. It does not elaborate on limits or source semantics, but those are covered by the schema, and no critical information is missing for a safe first call.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'file' is the central argument but adds no new details about 'limit' or 'source' beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource: it summarizes a file as a unit, listing defined symbols, imports, and dependents via the call graph. It explicitly distinguishes itself from repo_overview (whole repository) and describe_symbol (one symbol inside the file), so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit guidance: 'Read it before editing a file you don't know' and names the alternatives repo_overview and describe_symbol with their differing scopes. This tells the agent both when to use this tool and which sibling to prefer in related situations.

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