get_usage_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns definition, references, and calls, and mentions optimization for small LLMs. However, it does not detail side effects, performance implications, or permissions needed.

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 very concise, using a bulleted list for the three items, front-loading the purpose, and avoiding unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema (present but not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main use case of retrieving comprehensive symbol context. Minor addition: could mention that it combines multiple queries, but is still fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states 'for a symbol' which clarifies the purpose, but does not provide format examples or constraints beyond type string. This is adequate for a single parameter but minimal.

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 it retrieves comprehensive context for a symbol, listing three specific items: definition, references, and calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_definitions and find_references by offering a combined one-shot retrieval.

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 description mentions it is 'optimized for small LLMs to get full context in one shot', which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for more targeted queries.

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