get_ast_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the operation as a read ('get') and specifies the output content (scope chain). However, it lacks details on potential side effects (none expected), performance, or limitations beyond the given explanation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return format. It mentions 'scope chain' and 'shows enclosing...', which is somewhat complete for a simple tool, but lacks details on whether output is a list, tree, or something else. Could be more explicit for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for file and line. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter-specific detail.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'treesitter scope chain at a position', and explicitly lists what it shows (enclosing functions, classes, blocks). It is distinct from sibling tools which are LSP-based (e.g., get_document_symbols, hover).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for code structure context but does not mention when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for different tasks.

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