fastcontext_explore

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

The description clearly discloses the read-only nature, delegation to FastContext, and return format of verified path:line citations. However, it omits potential error handling or authentication requirements. Given no annotations, the description carries full burden but still provides strong transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load key purpose and usage instructions. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. The return value is described as verified citations, which is sufficient for an exploration tool, though more detail on error output could improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, like specifying that query should be specific with an example, explaining max_turns for auto-tuning versus deep traces, and clarifying defaults for repo_path and citation_only.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Find where code lives') and distinguishes itself from edit-review-debug tools by explicitly delegating to FastContext for read-only exploration.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('before editing/reviewing/debugging when unsure') and provides a follow-up action ('then open only the cited ranges').

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