get_file_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how it accesses the file, error behavior, or any side effects. The tool name hints at a safe read, but the description does not confirm it.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It starts with the action verb, names the target resource, and lists exactly what summary data is returned, all in a compact structure.

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 (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so the description covers the basic return values. However, it omits path semantics and any task-level context, and with no annotations, an agent lacks enough detail to fully ensure correct calling and error handling.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name 'path'. It does not clarify path format, whether the file must exist, supported file types, or how 'path' relates to the current project context.

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 states a clear verb ('Summarize'), a resource ('a file'), and the exact output contents ('language, line count, symbols'). This separates it from sibling tools like get_symbol_body or find_files, which target different resources and return different information.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_status or get_symbol_body, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The only implied use is 'when you need a file summary,' but that is not explicitly stated.

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