get_module_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool does. It discloses the returned structural elements in good detail, but does not mention behavior such as whether it is read-only, how it filters or traverses the directory, or how it handles missing objects.

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 compact and information-dense, listing concrete output elements and parameter meanings without fluff. It is slightly run-on, but every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 covers the tool's output shape and two of three parameters, and an output schema exists to further clarify return values. However, it omits the meaning of the required dir_path parameter and provides no usage context relative to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains object_path and module_name, but the only required parameter, dir_path, is not explained at all. This is a significant gap for the required input.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it returns the structural decomposition of a BSL module, including variables, procedures/functions, and the main program section. It is detailed enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like read_module or search_code, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_module, search_code, or get_metadata. The content implies structural introspection, but the description does not state conditions or exclusions.

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