get_context

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it reports relationship data not source bytes, returns a skeleton for files above ~80 lines with a verified flag, mentions the 'mostly_full' marker when Read is cheap, and explains conditional fields like fix_history based on counted bug fixes. It also clarifies that hotspot means churn, which is beyond schema/annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear concept, followed by a concise return-value summary and a well-structured Args list. Every sentence provides value—no filler. Despite its length, it remains skimmable and well-organized.

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 tool's complexity (multiple include blocks, conditional behavior, size-based skeleton), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return fields, batching, size thresholds, conditional flags, and integration with sibling tools. No significant gaps are apparent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the Args section fully compensates: targets define accepted forms (file paths, module paths, 'path::Symbol' ids), include lists all opt-in blocks, compact explains the effect of False, and repo is described as 'usually omitted'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 opens with a specific metaphor ('Triage card for files / modules / symbols') and explicitly states what it returns: title, summary, signatures, hotspot bit, decision_record titles, and symbol_ids. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by contrasting with get_symbol (pipe into it for bodies) and get_risk (cue to call it when hotspot/fix_history appear).

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?

Provides clear workflow guidance: use get_context for cheap triage, then pipe symbol_ids into get_symbol for bodies, and call get_risk when hotspot/fix_history are present. It also explains behavior for large files (skeleton vs mostly_full) and states that targets can be batched in one call, which helps when to use it efficiently.

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