get_defined_structures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'returns a list', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (non-destructive), if there are rate limits, what permissions are needed, or how the list is formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point ('Returns a list of all defined structures'). There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary details, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key context, but this is minor.

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 complexity (no parameters, but unclear resource type), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'defined structures' are, how the list is returned, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in this server's environment.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misleading information about parameters.

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 the verb ('returns') and resource ('list of all defined structures'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'defined structures' are in this context (e.g., data structures, memory structures, or something else), and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_functions' or 'list_globals', which might overlap conceptually.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_functions', 'list_globals', and 'list_local_types', the description doesn't specify if this tool is for a broader category, a subset, or something entirely different, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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