get_edit_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or behavior when multiple identifier parameters are supplied. The aliasing (symbol, symbol_name) is not explained.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that concisely lists the bundle contents. No wasted words, immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should describe the return structure more thoroughly. It lists components but omits output format or error scenarios. For a pre-edit tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 83%, so most parameter semantics are documented. The description adds little beyond listing components; it does not clarify how each parameter affects the bundle (e.g., max_deps limits). Baseline score is appropriate.

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's function: it provides a 'bundle' of information needed before editing, listing specific components (source, direct deps, callers, siblings, impacted tests). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings that might only cover a subset.

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 implies use before editing but does not explicitly guide when to choose this over siblings like get_dependencies or find_impacted_test_files. No 'when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned.

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