get_context_for_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the content components but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how errors are handled, what the risk score means, or how the bundle is returned. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool.

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 concise noun phrase that front-loads the core purpose and lists contents, but it lacks a verb and reads more like a label than a full sentence. It is not overly verbose, yet it could be more structured with a clearer main clause.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of the risk score, or how this bundle relates to the individual context tools. The description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'file' which maps to file_path, but action_type is only implied by 'editing' and not explicitly explained. The enum values (edit, create, delete, refactor) are not described, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-action context bundle for a file, listing specific content types such as constraints, decisions, bugs, co-edits, related facts, and risk score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target single context types. However, the phrase 'before editing' is slightly inconsistent with the action_type enum which includes create, delete, and refactor.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this bundle versus the many sibling tools like get_constraints or get_related_bugs. It implies usage before an action, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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