get_code_tree

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

No annotations and no description of behavioral traits such as required permissions, what data is returned (e.g., what 'counts' include), or whether it is safe to call frequently. The description omits important context about scope and side effects.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, no fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover more context without losing conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks information about pagination, output format, and the exact meaning of 'counts'. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no explanation for parameters like limit, offset, ignoreGlobs, or the relationship between workspacePath and workspacePaths. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'indexed files', and what is included ('symbol and dependency counts'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a broader overview, but does not explicitly differentiate from tools like get_dependencies or get_file_symbols.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not specify prerequisites (e.g., workspace must be indexed) or scenarios where this is preferred over more specific tools.

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