get_file_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state it explicitly, nor does it describe behavior for missing files, repo state requirements, or side effects. The return content list is useful but does not cover these behavioral expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence lists the included fields efficiently. There is no filler, though the unexplained 'Tier 2' term is a slight clarity cost.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but with no annotations and empty schema descriptions, the description must cover more ground. It omits usage context, parameter details, and any relationship to sibling tools like sync_repo or get_repo_status, leaving the agent to infer important context.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it only indirectly addresses file_path ('for a specific file') and says nothing about repo_name, path formats, or relationships between parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('Tier 2 file summary'), and the content list ('file purpose, public interfaces, dependencies, role classification, line count, token count') clarifies what is returned. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource type is clear enough to distinguish it from repo-level or symbol-level tools.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_symbol_detail or search_context, and no prerequisites such as whether the repo needs to be synced first. The intended usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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