get_root_node

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 clarifies the tool fetches a specific file and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. However, it does not disclose error cases (e.g., missing file) or other side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 consists of two sentences, each adding essential information: the tool's function and a critical usage order. There is no filler or redundancy.

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, so return values are likely covered there. The description provides the purpose, the exact file path, and usage priority. However, the unclear parameter semantics is a gap, though the tool's low complexity makes it mostly self-contained.

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?

The schema has one parameter (workspace_path) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent only sees a string with a default of '.', with no explanation that it likely refers to the workspace root. This is insufficient for a parameter with no schema documentation.

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 fetches the main root node at a specific path (.context/overview.md). The directive 'ALWAYS call this tool FIRST' distinguishes it from sibling tools by establishing it as the entry point.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS call this tool FIRST before scanning raw codebase files,' providing a strong when-to-use instruction. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'FIRST' directive effectively positions it as a prerequisite.

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