rtfm_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only paths and line ranges are returned and that content is intentionally excluded, which is a non-obvious and important behavior. It does not mention side effects, but the read-oriented language makes mutation unlikely.

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 two sentences with no filler: purpose, output shape, and the sibling alternative are each covered. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

For a read-style lookup tool with fully documented parameters and a clear output description, the definition is largely complete. It could be more complete by contrasting with rtfm_search, but nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 all four parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Get sources relevant to a subject') and clarifies the result shape as paths + line ranges, not content. It distinguishes itself from rtfm_expand, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling rtfm_search, which likely serves a similar lookup purpose.

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 gives a clear alternative: 'Use rtfm_expand to read', which tells the agent to use a different tool when content is needed. It does not, however, specify when to prefer rtfm_context over rtfm_search or other siblings, so the guidance is partial.

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