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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'depth-limited' as a constraint but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the tree contains, potential permissions, or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.

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 efficiently communicates the operation. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundant information. This is a model of conciseness.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is still incomplete. It does not describe the return format or what a 'project tree' entails (e.g., files, directories, representation). Without annotations or an output schema, the description should clarify these details.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'depth-limited', which directly links to the 'depth' parameter and implies the parameter controls the limit. However, it does not explain what depth measures or how it affects the result, leaving the parameter semantics partially unclear.

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 'Return a depth-limited project tree' uses a specific verb 'return' and clearly identifies the resource 'project tree', with a distinct qualifier 'depth-limited'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_summary or get_git_status.

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 no context about when to use this tool or alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like get_project_summary. There is no guidance beyond the inherent meaning of the name.

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