get_signature

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds value by noting it is cheaper than reading the full file and explicitly lists return content (signatures, docstrings, line ranges). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is highly concise: two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and limitations. It explains return content and use case, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 a clear description for file_path. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 skeleton of a Python file, listing specific elements (public function/class names, signatures, docstrings, line ranges). It also distinguishes from related tools by advising to call after get_node() and before get_code().

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this after get_node() to understand file structure before deciding which symbol to read with get_code(). Much cheaper than reading the full file.' Also specifies language limitation: 'Python files only. For other languages, read the file directly.'

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