codebase_context

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

With no annotations, the description must stand alone. It clearly states it's a read-only listing operation that shows artifact details (name, description, path, index status). No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the purpose is unambiguous and non-destructive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'List all context artifacts', and provides concrete examples and output fields. No wasted words.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description is self-contained: it explains what is listed, what fields are shown, and the configuration file used. It is sufficient for a basic listing tool, but lacks error/edge-case information.

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%, with a clear description for the single optional parameter (projectPath). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline 3.

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 specifies a concrete action: listing context artifacts from a specific file (.socraticodecontextartifacts.json), with examples of content (schemas, specs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the source file and focusing on discovery of project knowledge beyond code.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'to discover what project knowledge is available beyond source code'. It implies this is for initial exploration, but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives like codebase_context_search.

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