get_full_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only hints at return content for different depths but does not disclose behaviors like read-only nature, rate limits, or constraints (e.g., max_lines default). Batch mode via the 'names' parameter is undocumented.

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 concise (one sentence) but it lacks structure and clarity. While brevity is valued, the sentence is cryptic and misses key details, making it less effective than it could be.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain batch mode, the 'mode' parameter, default values, or the purpose of other parameters like 'project' and 'max_lines'.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of the 'depth' parameter (deps/dependents vs. change impact) but does not clarify other parameters like 'mode', 'names', or 'max_lines' beyond what the schema already says.

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 states it returns a 'Symbol bundle' with location, source, deps/dependents, and optionally change impact, indicating it provides comprehensive context about a symbol. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Retrieve') and uses jargon ('Symbol bundle'), slightly reducing clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_dependencies, get_dependents, or get_change_impact. It does not mention that it can replace multiple separate calls, nor does it give any usage context or exclusions.

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