get_skeleton

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns, the size reduction (10-50x), and that W web component summaries appear 'when present.' It is clear this is a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential performance impacts or error behavior, which would be useful.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without waste. Every clause adds value.

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?

The description provides a clear list of what the output contains, enough to understand the tool's purpose and result. Since there is no output schema, this fills the gap. Missing details like edge cases or prerequisites prevent a 5, but it is largely complete for a simple single-parameter 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?

The schema description covers the single 'path' parameter fully, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema provides sufficient semantics.

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 'get a compact minified project overview' with explicit details (legend, stats, node summaries, file imports, W web component summaries). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'docs' or 'compact' by specifying the output format and size reduction.

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 implies the use case (getting a compact overview) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools like 'compact' or 'get_focus_zone' are not referenced, so the guidance is indirect.

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