get_code_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain scanning behavior, depth limits, or the meaning of 'extensions to filter.' It only states the output categories, leaving significant behavioral traits (e.g., recursion, handling of hidden files) undisclosed.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning: the first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second highlights a key filtering capability. This is appropriately sized for a tool with a self-explanatory name.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify how filters like grep, ignore_patterns, or include_hidden affect results, nor does it describe the output format or return structure. The tool appears to inventory code symbols, but the description leaves critical context around constraints and defaults ambiguous.

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 schema documents all 9 parameters. The description adds a small hint about the 'extensions' parameter ('Use extensions to filter') but does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Lists classes, functions, methods, and exports.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of multiple symbol types distinguishes it from sibling get_functions, which likely focuses only on functions.

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 phrase 'Use extensions to filter' provides a clear usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_functions or get_complexity_metrics. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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