Extend Context From Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by describing the process (compression into temporary libraries) and the temporary nature, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first explains what the tool does, second provides the use case. No redundant text, front-loaded with essential information. Highly concise and 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?

With schema coverage 100% and annotations present, the description provides a good overview of purpose and process. It mentions temporary libraries and use case. Output schema exists but is not detailed; description adds sufficient context for the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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's action: loads files, compresses into temporary libraries, and retrieves context for a query. It distinguishes from permanent library tools by mentioning 'temporary' and 'without creating permanent libraries', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for quickly understanding large codebases without permanent libraries, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios but the context with siblings (create_knowledge_library, etc.) provides clear differentiation.

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