get_file_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what metadata is returned but does not disclose whether the tool reads the entire file, any size limits, side effects, or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely processes file contents.

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 sentence that packs in the purpose and key outputs. It is concise and front-loaded, but slightly dense; could be split for readability. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and siblings, the description lists key return values but lacks context on prerequisites (file existence, access) and how it relates to sibling tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 single parameter 'filePath' is described as 'Absolute path to the file' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 verb 'analyze' and 'get' with the resource 'file structure' and lists specific metadata types (line statistics, recommended chunk size, samples). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_summary which likely provides a summary, or read_large_file_chunk which reads content.

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 usage for analyzing file structure but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_large_file_chunk or search_in_large_file. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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