graft_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves data for a file but does not mention whether it is read-only, any required permissions, the nature of the output, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the 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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and to the point, but could be slightly more informative without adding length.

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 tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination, or limitations, and does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools in a meaningful way.

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 schema provides a full description for the 'path' parameter ('File path relative to project root'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding value.

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's function: retrieving dependencies and definitions for a specific file. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern, but could be more precise about what 'definitions' entails. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like graft_impact or graft_search, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (graft_impact, graft_map, graft_search, graft_summary). The description lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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