get_dev_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses all returned data elements (git branch, Jira ticket overview, open PR, next-step hints), which is good transparency. It does not describe side effects or auth needs, but the tool appears read-only.

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?

Description is two sentences: first defines purpose, second lists returns. It is concise with no wasted words, though some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. The tool has one optional parameter and simple behavior; the description covers what the agent needs to know for correct invocation.

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 parameter 'repoPath' is described in the schema as 'Local path to the git repo (defaults to cwd)'. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it is the master entry point for status and before tasks. It lists specific returned items (git branch, Jira ticket, PR, next steps) and distinguishes from sibling tools like git_get_context and jira_get by being a higher-level aggregator.

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?

Explicitly says to use before any review or coding task, and for getting status. This provides clear context. While it doesn't specify when not to use, the sibling tools imply alternatives for more granular needs.

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