Context Pack

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating that it uses a per-user external cache and leaves the target repository unchanged. This helps an agent understand side effects and safety implications without contradicting the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes relevant behavioral constraints without any filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only tool with six parameters, all documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, cache behavior, and non-mutating guarantee. It does not describe the output format or the multi-repo capability, but the schema already documents the relevant flags, and the core usage context is adequately conveyed.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about packet contents and cache behavior but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline for high 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 verb 'Generate' and the resource: a 'task-aware local context packet' containing primary files, related files, tests, patterns, and validation commands. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as repo_map or repo_inspect, but its output and purpose are specific enough to be understood.

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 about when to choose this tool over siblings like repo_search, change_impact, or repo_harness. The description implies it is for gathering context around a task, but it does not state alternatives, exclusions, or use cases where another tool would be preferable.

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