get_file_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workspace scope but does not explain what 'file context' includes, how paths resolve, or whether neighboring context is pulled. With annotations carrying the burden, this is an average level of additional 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 a single sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose safety profile and output schema are already structured.

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?

Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return-shape expectations. However, with zero parameter descriptions and a non-obvious include_neighbors parameter, the description leaves a meaningful invocation gap. An agent cannot fully determine how to request the right amount of context or what 'file context' consists of.

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 does not compensate by explaining either parameter. 'paths' is somewhat inferable from 'file context', but include_neighbors is entirely unexplained. An agent cannot tell what the integer means, what default 40 implies, or how it changes the returned context.

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 a read action ('Read file context') and a resource scope ('orchestrator workspace'). It is distinguishable from writing tools like write_project_memory and record_decision, though 'file context' is somewhat ambiguous and could overlap with search_project_memory or list_related_artifacts without further detail.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as search_project_memory or list_related_artifacts exist, but the description does not contrast them or state any exclusion criteria. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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