coding_get_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects it has. For a 'get' action, safety traits are not confirmed.

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?

Description is short but not optimally front-loaded. The first sentence is tautological. The arg list is useful but could be integrated more concisely.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits what the tool actually returns or how the context action works. For a coding domain tool with no annotation backing, it leaves critical usage gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal definitions: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides some context but lacks detail on expected format or structure of the inputs parameter.

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?

Description only says 'Run the coding domain agent action `get_context`', which essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what 'get_context' does. It does not distinguish from siblings like coding_read_code or coding_chat.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many coding siblings, there is no indication of when get_context is appropriate vs coding_chat or coding_read_code.

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