code_context_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the tool retrieves, whether it is read-only, what kind of context it returns, or any side effects. The lack of any behavioral information is a critical gap.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. There is no structure, no front-loading of key information, and no attempt to convey necessary details. Efficiency without content is not valuable.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what outputs to expect, or how this tool fits into the broader context retrieval workflow. The definition is not minimally viable.

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%, and the description adds no semantic meaning to any of the 12 parameters. The required fields repository_id and target_commit are not explained, and the many optional fields like node_ids, direction, and traversal_policy are entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 'code context get' is a direct tautology of the tool name, offering no verb beyond 'get' and no clarification of what 'code context' means or what the tool does. It fails to distinguish this tool from many siblings like graph_context_get or dict_read, providing no unique purpose.

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?

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or when to choose a different tool among the extensive sibling list.

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