get_project_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the main behavior (read-only, returns package hierarchy), the precondition (requires load_project), and approximate output shape. It does not detail potential errors, performance, or whether state changes occur, but as a read-only query tool, the description is adequate.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, usage, output, and a prerequisite. It uses clear labels ('USAGE:', 'OUTPUT:') and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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’s simplicity (no output schema, two optional params) and the server’s many sibling tools, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned at a high level. However, it does not clarify the hierarchical structure in the output or default behavior for maxDepth, but the schema covers defaults. It is adequate but not richly detailed.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds little beyond: it mentions 'file counts' and 'packages' but does not explicitly map parameters to output changes. The schema descriptions are self-explanatory, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool gets the project structure showing package hierarchy, and specifies output as source roots with packages and file counts. The name and description together convey the specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_type_hierarchy or get_dependency_graph, but the context of package hierarchy is distinct enough.

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 provides a clear usage context: call to see the package tree of the loaded project. It explicitly states the prerequisite that load_project must be called first, which guides the agent on invocation order. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the single-line usage instruction is sufficient.

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