coding_get_context

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

The description is silent about side effects or whether the action modifies state. Crucially, the annotations set destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, which contradicts the tool name 'get_context' and the general expectation of a read-only operation. The description does not clarify this discrepancy, leaving the agent with conflicting information about potential destructive behavior.

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 concise (two sentences) and includes an Args section. However, it lacks a clear structured breakdown of behavior, and the single sentence is largely a restatement of the tool name. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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?

The description does not explain what the returned context contains, how it relates to the coding domain, or why an agent would choose this over other coding tools. Given the large sibling set, the tool is poorly contextualized. The output schema is not provided, and the description omits any mention of return value or typical use scenarios.

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?

The description provides brief explanations for both parameters: 'message' is a 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but remains generic. It does not specify expected formats, examples, or how they affect the context retrieval.

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 says 'Run the coding domain agent action `get_context`', which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what retrieving context entails. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scoping, but the actual function remains vague. It does not differentiate from similar coding tools like coding_search or coding_read_code.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for selection, prerequisites, or compare with coding_chat, coding_search, or coding_read_code. The description only describes the mechanism (routing) but not the use case.

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