get_engineering_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('Markdown-formatted engineering standards') and notes project_root is 'for local rules/sessions', but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects.

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 purpose is stated in one sentence, followed by a clearly structured Args/Returns list. The description is scannable and appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, and return format, and an output schema exists. It lacks usage guidance and sibling differentiation, but is otherwise adequate for a retrieval tool.

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?

All five parameters are described in the Args section with meaningful context beyond the schema (e.g., operation is 'What you're doing', file_paths is 'List of file paths involved'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get relevant Sensei engineering context for the current task' with a specific verb and resource. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_engineering_guidance or get_session_context.

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 implies usage for retrieving engineering standards by listing operation, file_paths, and description as inputs. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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