get_code_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic listing operation and adds no context about scan behavior (e.g., recursion, hidden files, grouping) or return format. The rich set of parameters (max_depth, max_files, include_hidden, etc.) is not mentioned, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that are easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and the primary action and key filter hint are front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundant language.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably thin. It fails to communicate how parameters like group_by, max_depth, ignore_patterns, and include_private affect the result, nor does it clarify the relationship between grep and ignore_patterns. The description is adequate for a basic list tool but insufficient for the complexity of this tool's capabilities.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of extensions filter adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Filter by extensions.' No parameter-specific elaboration or examples are provided, so the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies concrete resources ('classes, functions, methods, and exports'), making its purpose clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_functions by covering a broader set of code elements, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 only usage hint is 'Use extensions to filter,' which is a minor feature note but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_functions or get_complexity_metrics. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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