axon_pro_file_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It does not disclose whether the file must exist, error behavior for a missing/invalid path, output size, or any permission or performance characteristics.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action and result front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is terse enough to leave gaps rather than being an exemplary compact definition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should explain what 'full context' and 'symbols' concretely mean, since there is no structured return value to inspect. It partially compensates by naming the return content but still leaves the shape of the output undefined.

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% with a single documented parameter ('Path to the file'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full context for a specific file') plus the payload ('all its symbols'), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like axon_pro_context or axon_pro_related_files, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling context/query tools. The agent is left to infer when this tool is preferable to axon_pro_context or axon_pro_search_code.

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