fullscope_batch_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: minification, intent-based compression, token budgeting, import dedup, and dependency ordering. However, it does not mention error handling, caching, or output format, though the tool is clearly read-only.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the main purpose and listing features with numbered points. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse (e.g., removing the introductory intro).

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description explains the tool's features well but fails to describe the output format (e.g., minified content structure, skeleton representation, file paths). This gap leaves agents guessing the response structure for a complex tool.

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 baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how the 'intent' parameter biases compression, how 'max_total_tokens' enables token budgeting, and that 'priority' in files ensures full context for high-priority files. This context helps agents use the parameters effectively.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'multiple files' with the key differentiator 'in one call, each minified.' It distinguishes from siblings like fullscope_context (likely single file) and fullscope_skeleton by emphasizing batch reading and overhead savings.

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 implies a use case—reading multiple files to save overhead—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., fullscope_context for single files, fullscope_skeleton for outlines). No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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