Get Project Structure

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by explaining default flat array format to save tokens, summaryOnly option, and requirement of open project. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, default behavior, and prerequisite. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately explains return format and options. Missing explicit parameter descriptions for folderId and includeTrash, but overall sufficient for a read-structured 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?

Schema coverage 60% means some parameters (folderId, includeTrash) lack schema descriptions. Description adds context for flat, summaryOnly, and maxDepth but does not explain folderId or includeTrash, leaving gaps.

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 it returns the binder hierarchy (folders and documents) with specific fields. It differentiates from siblings like get_document_info by focusing on the entire structure and providing document IDs needed by other tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to understand manuscript layout and obtain document IDs for other tools. Also notes prerequisite of an open project. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context implies alternatives exist.

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