roslyn:get_project_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 25,000-token output limit, default parameter values, and per-project limits for references (100) and documents (500). This is strong behavioral context, though it could explicitly state the tool is read-only.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a critical usage warning. Every word adds value; no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers input constraints (token limits, defaults) and performance tips. It lacks details about the output structure (e.g., whether it returns a hierarchical JSON), but the summaryOnly hint partially addresses this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a parameterized query tool.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by revealing default behaviors (e.g., 'includeReferences' defaults to true) and practical constraints (e.g., 'includeDocuments' limited to 500 per project). This aids the agent in parameter selection.

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 'Get solution/project structure' is a clear verb+resource pair that distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_file_overview' or 'get_type_hierarchy' by focusing on top-level structure.

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 explicitly advises using 'summaryOnly=true' or 'projectNamePattern' for large solutions to avoid token limit errors, providing practical when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., preferring a more specific sibling).

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