get_code_context

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is already covered. The description adds behavioral context about the two modes (single vs. batch) and a recommendation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or exact return format. This is adequate given the simple read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and no wasted words. Every phrase adds value: the purpose, the two modes, and the batch recommendation.

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 description covers the primary usage and modes, and the annotation provides safety context. There is no output schema, so the description could ideally mention what the response includes, but the tool name and context_lines parameter imply code content around the specified lines. It is complete enough for a straightforward read-only utility.

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 is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by clarifying the mode semantics (single vs. batch) and the recommendation to use batch mode, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. It also reinforces relative path handling with project_path.

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 uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (代码上下文), and clarifies its purpose: helping judge whether a code hit is truly affected by changes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on context retrieval for impact assessment, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (to verify if a hit is affected by changes) and recommends batch mode for multiple hits to reduce round trips. It gives context for both single and batch modes, though it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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