get_edit_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the useful fact that this is a composite/aggregated read rather than a single-resource fetch, but says nothing about cost, size limits, or truncation behavior of the bundle.

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 fragment with zero filler; the bundle contents are listed immediately. It is arguably too terse to stand alone, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only aggregator with no output schema and high schema coverage, the description adequately signals what comes back. The gaps are the alias-parameter semantics and any indication of bundle size or output shape, which are minor given the annotations.

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 the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, and notably does not clarify the name/symbol/symbol_name alias anyOf or how max_deps/max_callers shape the returned bundle.

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?

Names a specific artifact ('pre-edit bundle') and enumerates its five contents (source, direct deps, callers, same-file siblings, impacted tests), which is far more informative than a bare verb+resource. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like find_impacted_test_files or get_dependencies, though it never explicitly says how it differs from get_full_context or get_change_impact.

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?

'Pre-edit' implies the trigger point (before making a change), but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no named alternative. With get_full_context, get_change_impact and get_dependencies in the sibling set, the agent must guess which context-gathering tool to pick.

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