get_file_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return type and content, but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., readonly), permissions, or indexing requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single 18-word sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action and result.

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 existence of output schema, description provides sufficient high-level overview. Mentions specific content (symbols, line ranges). Slightly more context about indexing or environment would improve completeness.

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%, yet the description adds no details about the 'path' parameter beyond the schema. It does not specify format, constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for low 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a structured AST summary for a given file, listing included symbols and line ranges. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'file' make purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_symbol_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_symbol_context' or 'search_codebase'. The description only implies usage for file analysis but lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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