Build context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it: it does not say whether files are read from disk, whether an index must exist first, how large the markdown output can get, or how maxFiles truncation behaves. The only disclosure is the output format (markdown) and the source-file restriction.

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?

One sentence with zero padding and the key noun front-loaded, so it is structurally efficient. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness, since the sentence omits information the agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

This is a complex tool — nested union parameter with two search modes, enum-constrained detail, path list, file cap — with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. A single nine-word sentence is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to select or invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, including a nested indexedSearch union with two modes (symbols/references), a detail enum, paths, and maxFiles. The description adds no meaning for any of them — no explanation of what "detail" controls, how paths interacts with indexedSearch, or how maxFiles caps results — so an agent must reverse-engineer intent from raw JSON Schema.

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 names a verb ("Build") and a resource ("markdown context"), plus a scope restriction ("supported source files"), but "context" is left undefined — it is unclear whether this aggregates file contents, symbols, or index hits. It also offers no differentiation from siblings like summarize_file or search_symbols that plausibly produce similar output.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when this beats summarize_file, search_symbols, or find_references, nor what conditions (e.g. needing indexed search results in markdown form) should select it. The only hint is the implicit constraint of "supported source files."

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