get_focus_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'auto-detects from git' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'enriched context' includes, how conflicts between useGitDiff and recentFiles are handled, or any side effects. This lack of detail is significant for a tool that may depend on git state.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, and the format is easy to parse quickly. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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?

Despite having three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the nature or structure of the 'enriched context' result, potential parameter combinations, or edge cases. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 67% (useGitDiff and recentFiles have descriptions; path does not). The description adds some context by mentioning 'explicit file list' and 'auto-detects from git', which aligns with recentFiles and useGitDiff. However, it does not clarify the 'path' parameter, so it only marginally improves on 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's purpose: 'Get enriched context for recently modified files.' It specifies the resource (recently modified files) and the action (get enriched context), with additional detail about auto-detection from git or explicit file lists. This distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_ai_context.

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 provides usage context by explaining two modes: auto-detect from git or provide an explicit file list. This implies when the tool is useful (when needing context for recently modified files) but does not specify when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., when not to use git diff).

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