Retrieve from explicit entry (compatibility)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It signals that this is a compatibility/legacy path and that an explicit trusted entry is required, but it does not describe whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any safety or performance characteristics.

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 two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the compatibility-path context and followed immediately by the usage restriction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 16-parameter tool with a nested evidence object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It covers routing relative to a sibling but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral expectations largely unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 16 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions file, line, symbol, and structured evidence, but does not explain the required task parameter or the many tuning parameters such as maxDepth, maxNodes, tokenBudget, or visitPolicy.

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 calls itself a 'compatibility path' for callers with a trusted JS/TS entry location, but it never states what is actually retrieved (e.g., dependency context, call graph, symbol body). It differentiates itself from retrieve_dependency_context, but the core verb+resource remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: only when the user or an upstream tool explicitly provides file/line, symbol, or structured evidence. It also states when not to use it ('do not infer an entry') and names the alternative to use instead (retrieve_dependency_context).

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