argot.get_voice_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it is read-only and requires a fitted repository, providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences plus a note, front-loading the main purpose and efficiently conveying critical information without extraneous content.

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 the simple parameter set (2 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and return values. It could elaborate on 'active replacement guidance,' but is largely complete.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description mentions that file_path's extension selects the language, adding slight context, but overall doesn't significantly extend beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves repository vocabulary relevant to a file (typical callees, imports, replacement guidance) and distinguishes it from being a code verdict or changeset check, differentiating it from sibling tools like argot.check_changeset.

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 indicates use 'before writing' and clarifies it is 'generation context, not a verdict about code and not a changeset check,' implying appropriate usage scenarios. It also notes it requires a fitted repository, though explicit when-not-to-use and alternatives are not provided.

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