get_test_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently lists what the tool returns (function, dependencies, callers, types, file paths) and mentions depth parameters control tracing depth. It does not disclose side effects or auth needs, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 is efficient but slightly run-on. It front-loads the purpose but could be split for clarity. Every part is informative, but structure could be improved.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining what is returned but does not specify the output format or structure. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating that depth parameters control tracing. It does not provide additional context for parameters like codebase or symbol beyond what the schema already states.

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's purpose: 'Get everything needed to write tests for a function or module' and lists specific items returned (function, dependencies, callers, types, file paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_symbol or trace_callees which focus on individual aspects.

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 for test writing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like impact_analysis or trace_callees. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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