get_file_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does so: it discloses the meaningful inheritance behavior (parent-directory rules are included) and that rules are filtered to 'active'. It says nothing about auth needs, response shape, or how 'active' is determined, leaving real gaps.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage needs more than one sentence. The limit/pagination behavior and the interaction between project_path and paths are left entirely undocumented.

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 0% and the description compensates only weakly: 'files' loosely implies the paths parameter, but project_path and limit are never addressed. Two of three parameters, including the pagination control, remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active rules for files'), and adds a scope qualifier ('including rules attached to their parent directories'). It is distinguishable from the memory-oriented siblings, but it never names them to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among search_memory/record_memory/supersede_memory/dispute_memory. Usage is only implied by the word 'Get'.

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