silica_code_pack

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: static AST only, no repo mutation between calls ('same repo state, same bytes'), an enforced character budget with the target always served, and the `truncated`/`dropped` signals an agent must check before trusting completeness. It also discloses that `languages` reports which parsers this install supports — an environment-dependent limitation.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic style ('Static AST only, same repo state, same bytes') and heavy inline backticks make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, costing a point on structure.

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, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it enumerates the sections returned, explains the budget/truncation contract, names the meta-fields (`truncated`, `dropped`, `languages`), and states the static-analysis limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 target forms, section names, and the budget default are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the budget concept ('inside a character budget', 'target is always served') but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific resource — a 'pack' of structural facts (supertypes, extenders, callers, named signatures, external dependencies, importers) around a file, a `#Class.member`, or the symbol at `#L<line>` — and explicitly scopes it against the sibling tools' territory (raw file reading/searching). An agent can tell what this produces and when it differs from silica_read/silica_search without opening a schema.

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 gives concrete triggers: 'before editing or explaining a source file' and 'when a traceback or a diff names `file:line`'. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative tool (e.g. 'instead of silica_read') or states an exclusion, so it stops short of the explicit routing a 5 requires.

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