cerebro_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the informational content (summary, symbols, edges) and mentions a staleness flag, but does not specify read-only behavior, required preconditions (e.g., file must be indexed), or side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Everything Cerebro knows about a file WITHOUT reading it') and then lists the outputs. No superfluous 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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it returns and the key caveat (not reading the file). It lacks detail about prerequisites or error conditions, but the output schema likely fills some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the 'path' parameter. It does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name and the tool context. The description assumes the user knows it expects a file path, but provides no details on format, required existence, or allowed file types.

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 'Everything Cerebro knows about a file WITHOUT reading it' and lists specific outputs: cached summary, staleness flag, defined symbols, and dependency edges. This distinguishes it from reading the file and from sibling tools that likely have different purposes.

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 usage when you need cached metadata without reading the file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like cerebro_callers or cerebro_stale. No guidance on when not to use it.

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