get_snipe_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the lazy, progressive-depth behavior and what each level returns, which is useful, but it omits safety properties (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, performance implications, or side effects.

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 compact and front-loads the key idea ('Lazy context for an issue') before listing levels. It uses some terse jargon ('suspect', 'task_context') but avoids filler.

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 output schema covers return values, and the level semantics are well described. However, the description leaves the required id parameter underexplained and provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over related context tools, leaving gaps for a complex multi-level retrieval operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents the meaning of the level parameter (0–6 with per-level outputs), but the required id parameter is only implicitly described as an 'issue' identifier and lacks explicit semantics.

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 states a specific resource (context for an issue) and details the progressive levels of information returned. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its many context-related siblings beyond a passing reference to task_context at level 6.

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 phrase 'Climb only as high as needed' gives clear guidance on selecting the level parameter, and the level-by-level mapping describes what each level provides. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like task_context or change_context.

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