jambavan_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: returns ranked/token-budgeted context, automatically includes project-memory matches and bounded callers/callees, and clarifies that include_tests shows 'heuristic test associations/references, not execution coverage.' It also explains the effect of each option.

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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then covers output, usage advantage, automatic behaviors, and options. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage: purpose, return type (context block), usage directive, cost comparison, automatic inclusion behavior, and option distinctions. It gives an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning by explaining the automatic inclusion of callers/callees under the same token budget, which informs the behavior of the 'limit' parameter. It also summarizes each boolean option, providing contextual understanding beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Jambavan index for code symbols and snippets most relevant to a query.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on producing a token-budgeted context block for injection, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 offers clear usage context: 'Inject this block into your prompt' and emphasizes cost efficiency over 'reading whole files.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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