hound_file_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get extended context', which implies a read operation, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or output behavior. The transparency is insufficient for an AI agent to understand implications.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a typical use case. Every sentence adds value, and no superfluous information is present.

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 tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain what the output format or content is, nor does it address any constraints like line limits or performance. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'context' parameter or the relationship between parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get extended context') and resource ('a specific line in a file'). It also provides a use case ('understanding code around a search match'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the siblings are distinct in purpose.

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 hints at when to use the tool ('Useful for understanding code around a search match'), but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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