lc_missing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves' missing context, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'retrieving' entails operationally. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a list format. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter explanations could be more concise.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic context but lacks depth. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the tool's operational behavior and parameter semantics remain under-specified for effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Root directory path', 'Type of data'), but these are minimal and don't fully clarify usage. For example, 'data' is described as 'JSON string containing the data' without detailing structure or examples beyond file paths. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 purpose as 'retrieving missing context' with specific resource types (files, implementations, excluded sections). It uses the verb 'retrieving' and identifies the resource scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lc_changed or lc_outlines.

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 alternatives. The description mentions the tool is 'unified' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like lc_changed or lc_outlines.

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