explore_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a 'read-only operation' with 'no side effects', describes the return format ('Markdown-formatted outline'), and details the output structure ('grouped by type', 'including line numbers'). It also specifies supported languages ('Java, Kotlin, and TypeScript'), adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, support) and front-loaded key information. Most sentences earn their place by adding value, though some phrasing could be slightly more concise (e.g., 'Provides a structural bird's-eye view' is somewhat verbose). Overall, it's efficient and organized.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing behavioral aspects (read-only, return format, side effects) and usage context. It covers the tool's purpose, guidelines, and limitations comprehensively. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or edge case information, but it's largely complete for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by restating that 'file_path' must be a valid path and 'repo_name' helps with ambiguity, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('inspect', 'list', 'show') and resources ('classes, methods, and properties within a specific source file'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for single-file analysis versus search across files, making the scope explicit and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('AFTER identifying an interesting file via search_hybrid_context' and 'before modifying a file') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use this for searching across multiple files'). It names the sibling tool as an alternative for file discovery, offering clear context for selection.

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