get_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output is a 'compressed overview' and indicates the tool is inexpensive (cost hint), but doesn't detail any edge cases or behavior beyond that. However, for a read-only informational tool, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then providing usage guidance, and ending with a cost-benefit note. Every sentence is valuable and concise, with no extraneous content.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no complex behavior) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It provides a complete, standalone understanding for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 returns a compressed overview of the indexed directory structure, listing specific elements like language breakdown, directory structure, key files, and dependency information. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('compressed overview'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search for specific content.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use this FIRST when starting work on an unfamiliar directory to understand its layout before searching for specific content.' It also notes it's 'Much cheaper than reading files individually,' giving clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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