get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains what is returned (endpoints, screens, pages, files) and how the analyzeImpact and verbose flags modify behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes essential information: what it does, when to use it, and how to control output. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage, output type (endpoints, screens, pages, files), and optional behavior (analyzeImpact, verbose). It does not provide a detailed return structure, but no output schema exists, and the overview is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of analyzeImpact ('check for breaking changes') and verbose ('full per-step breakdown') in the context of the tool's workflow. This adds meaningful semantic context, warranting a 4.

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 ('Get') and resource ('rich cross-project context for a feature at a specific workflow step'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_feature (which likely fetches a single feature) and search (which might search broadly) by emphasizing cross-project context and workflow steps.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before testing or implementing a feature step.' This provides clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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