codix.context.smart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a filtering/selection behavior ('return only'), but does not disclose side effects, required prerequisites, or limitations. There is no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if no context matches, or how the 'smart' selection is performed.

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 one short sentence with no word waste, and it leads with the tool's purpose. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, lacking any structured breakdown of parameters or usage context, so it does not earn a higher score.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate for the missing behavioral and return-value details. It does not. For a tool with four parameters and a non-trivial task (selecting context chunks), this one-liner is incomplete, leaving major gaps in what the agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what 'brief', 'stack', 'include', or 'activeTask' mean or how they relate to the stated task. With four parameters and no additional information, the agent is left to infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('context chunks needed for the active task'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like codix.stack.recommend or codix.prompt.generate. However, 'context chunks' is vague and does not specify what kind of context (e.g., code, files, data), so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for the active task' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative should be chosen instead. Sibling tools are listed, but no comparisons or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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