generate_skeleton_view

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 explicitly reveals the core transformation (removing function/method bodies, preserving JSDoc and declarations with line numbers), which is the essential behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects or return details, but the described behavior is clear and sufficient for basic understanding.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Generates a token-optimized representation') and efficiently conveys the mechanism. There is zero redundant or filler content, making it highly concise.

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 straightforward, and the description covers its transformation logic and output basis (declarations with line numbers). It does not specify the return format or side effects, but given the strong schema coverage and simple nature, the description is generally complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (file_path, project_root, include_jsdoc, include_private_members). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Generates a token-optimized representation'), the target resource ('a source file'), and the transformation method ('stripping function and method bodies, keeping only JSDocs and declarations with line numbers'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on analysis or diffing rather than compact source representation.

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 description implies its usage for generating a leaner view of source files for context-constrained tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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