context_packet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by stating the tool is read-only, does not refresh the index, uses deterministic providers, exposes retrieval diagnostics, and mentions a rollback path. No contradictions with 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 front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary technical details. Sentences are dense but each adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient for a complex tool.

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?

The description provides a thorough explanation of the tool's role, behavior, and outputs (retrieval diagnostics, enrichments). However, it lacks detail on most input parameters and does not leverage the existing output schema to reduce the burden. Adequate for high-level understanding but incomplete for precise invocation.

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 only mentions one parameter (risksMinConfidence) explicitly. With 17 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation, leaving most inputs unexplained.

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 defines the tool as a first-mile context scout for coding agents, using deterministic providers to produce ranked, source-labeled context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating its role before normal harness loops, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use as the first-mile packet before normal harness read/search/edit loops', providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving some gap.

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