get_file_context

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 mentions what the output includes (functions, classes, imports, relationships) but lacks details on behavioral traits like performance, caching, permissions, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loading purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information. This is a model of conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description adequately covers the high-level purpose and what the tool returns. However, it could be more explicit about the output format and how it complements sibling tools, making it nearly complete but with room for improvement.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only says 'comprehensive context' without elaborating on parameters like detail or include_hints. Thus, no extra value is added.

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 gets comprehensive context for a file, listing functions, classes, imports, and relationships. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like get_module_context, the mention of 'connect to the rest of the codebase' helps distinguish it from more specific tools like get_function_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 provides a clear context for use: 'when you need to understand what a file contains and how it connects to the rest of the codebase.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would improve guidance.

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