get_program_context

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds some color about contents (ladder, comments, symbols) but does not disclose anything beyond that, such as output size or performance characteristics. It is consistent with annotations, and the extra detail about 'optional rung analysis' provides slight incremental value.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and primary contents. It contains zero filler and is well-front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to clarify parameter semantics and usage context. It fails to explain the meaning of 'structured' and 'include_empty_rungs,' and doesn't mention how this tool differs from related rung-level tools. For a read-only tool with 4 params, it is too terse to be fully self-sufficient.

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 has the full burden to explain parameters. It only mentions 'optional rung analysis,' which vaguely hints at structured or include_empty_rungs, but does not clarify what these booleans control or how project_id and program_name are used. Required parameters are obvious from names, but the optional flags are unexplained.

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 tool returns program context including ladder, comments, symbols, and optional rung analysis, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like get_rungs or list_symbols by implying a broader, AI-focused context, though it doesn't 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_rungs, analyze_rung, or list_symbols. The description implies it's for pulling a whole program context, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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