get_doc_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') without mentioning any side effects, permissions, or potential costs. While it does not contradict annotations (none exist), it lacks details about behavior, such as whether the operation is cheap or if caching applies. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but not exemplary.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and output. The second provides context on usage. No extraneous information is present, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns ('file paths and descriptions') and its utility. Missing is a more detailed description of the output format (e.g., flat list or nested structure), but the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's basic function.

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 no parameters, so the input schema provides full coverage (100%). The description does not need to add parameter information. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('complete documentation directory structure'), specifying it includes file paths and descriptions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs or get_doc, which operate on individual documents or lists.

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 includes 'Useful for understanding the organization of documentation', which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or suggest alternatives, such as noting when to use list_docs instead. The guidance is present but minimal.

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