cerebro_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns cached data (with staleness flag) and does not read the file. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 one sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key outputs, and a critical behavioral constraint (no file read). No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could mention prerequisites like file existence or permissions, but not essential.

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?

The only parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the path format, restrictions, or example values. However, the parameter name and tool context make its purpose obvious, so the description adds minimal extra value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves cached summary (with staleness flag), defined symbols, and dependency edges for a file, emphasizing it does NOT read the file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerebro_read (if it existed) or other cerebro tools that might read file contents.

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 this tool is used when you need cached metadata about a file without performing a read. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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