project_get_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the shape of the return value (boards, schematics, PCBs, panels, focused document) — useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting size limits or whether it reflects unsaved edits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core resource and its scope are front-loaded before the secondary detail about the focused document. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter query tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough of the return shape to be actionable without an output schema. It could be slightly more complete on whether the snapshot includes unsaved state, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains instance_id, its format and the auto-select behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (current project structure), then enumerates the exact contents returned: boards with schematics/PCBs, standalone schematics with pages, standalone PCBs, panels. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like editor_get_open_tabs or list_instances, which cover different resources.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs an overview of the project hierarchy. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as editor_get_open_tabs or editor_get_current_document, and no stated prerequisites.

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