call_read_deep_context

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Return nested call/read context', without indicating whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure and does not fully specify the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded but too brief to inform the agent effectively.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 7 parameters, the description does not explain what 'nested call/read context' means, how parameters like max_depth and limit affect results, or when to use this tool among many similar siblings.

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 description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The description does not explain how the optional parameters (e.g., feature_path, scenario_tag) should be used together.

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 nested call/read context for feature scenarios, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_failure_debug_context' or 'get_subgraph', which also return 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to use it over 'get_failure_debug_context' or 'global_search'. The description omits any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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