One-call task context bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that the tool runs exploration autonomously, ranks symbols, and operates under a char budget. However, it does not mention potential costs or failure modes (e.g., ambiguous queries), and stops short of stating whether it is read-only, though that is implied.

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 front-loaded with the core value proposition and each sentence serves a purpose, but it is slightly verbose (e.g., the round-trip savings sentence partially repeats the opening). It remains informative without being overly padded.

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 must explain return content, and it does describe the included elements (ranked symbols, import graph, bodies). However, it omits the exact response structure or formats, and does not address error cases, leaving some gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context by linking 'char budget' to budget and 'top few bodies' to bodies, but it does not provide new parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Understand a whole topic in ONE call' and explains what it does (BM25-ranks symbols, shows import graph, includes bodies). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_symbol_context and read_lines as alternatives for exact source.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Orient with this; drop to get_symbol_context / read_lines for exact source.' It clearly positions the tool for high-level orientation and round-trip savings, and contrasts with alternatives.

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