osnova_footing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a bounded context (under 4096 code units), inlines seed definitions only when 40 lines or shorter, and reports exact omission counts. It doesn't mention performance or error behavior, but the key output characteristics are disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first packs the output content and size constraint, the second gives the usage rule and alternatives. No filler words, though the first sentence is noun-heavy and requires careful parsing.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with a fully described schema and explicit safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, output bounds, and when/when-not. No output schema exists, but the size limit and omission counts are stated. It lacks detail on failure modes or response shape, which is acceptable given the structured coverage.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters with defaults, enums, and semantics. The description only broadly refers to 'seed definitions' and 'callers/callees' without adding syntax, format, or inter-parameter behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (retrieve/assemble) and resource (task context: seed definitions, callers/callees, test files) with a size bound and omission counts. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ground and warp as alternatives for single symbols. The purpose is clear, though the quirky companion tool names and the dense phrasing slightly obscure it.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('once at the start of a change or review that spans more than one file') and when not to ('for a single known symbol use ground or warp instead'). This is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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