get_dev_context

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return types (git branch, Jira ticket, PR, hints) and implies it is an aggregator. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or performance, but since it is a read-only context tool, the transparency 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 two sentences that front-load purpose and triggers, then enumerates returns. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a bullet list could improve scannability.

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 explains the aggregated nature of the tool and its output components. Given the complexity (multiple data sources) and absence of an output schema, it provides adequate context for an agent to understand 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?

There is only one parameter (repoPath) with full schema coverage (100%). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's default description. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 it is a 'Master entry point' and lists specific queries that trigger its use ('what am I working on?', 'what's the status?', etc.). It also enumerates the multi-source output (git, Jira, PR, next steps), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover individual sources.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when asked...' plus 'before any review or coding task'. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and frames it as a prerequisite to other actions.

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