get_context_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool provides a bundle for 'safely editing a node' but does not elaborate on what 'safely' entails, side effects, or read-only behavior. It conveys the output contents but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like rate limits or data consistency.

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 that front-loads the bundle contents and usage tip. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary information. Highly concise and well-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?

Given no output schema, the description outlines the four components of the bundle but does not specify their structure or format. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or how maxRefs affects the output. Adequate but not fully complete.

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% and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It implies how parameters affect the output (e.g., target node id) but does not discuss default values or usage tips for root and maxRefs. Baseline 3 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 bundles a node's source, dependencies, dependents, and blast radius for safe editing. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives like get_node, source, who_calls, and blast_radius.

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 explicitly advises using this tool instead of multiple separate calls (get_node + source + who_calls + blast_radius), providing clear guidance on when it is appropriate. However, it does not mention cases where using a subset of those tools might be preferable.

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