brief

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

The description implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get an overview', but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose performance, prerequisites, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description largely fulfills transparency but leaves 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and expected output.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the basics. However, without an output schema, the format of 'symbols, imports, and exports' is unspecified, which could hinder the agent's understanding of the response. 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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the tool extracts 'symbols, imports, and exports' from the file, giving context to the output. This surpasses the baseline of 3 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: 'Get a brief overview of a file: its symbols, imports, and exports.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_entry_points or search_code by specifying the content of the overview.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., context, list_entry_points), the agent receives no clues about preferred use cases or exclusions.

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