bb_get_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the bundle contents, the effect of detail_level, and the accepted input forms. While it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, it provides essential behavioral context for a data retrieval tool.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing concise guidance on inputs and detail_level. No filler or repetition.

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 covers the main use cases, input forms, and verbosity control. Given no output schema, it does not detail the response structure, but the high-level contents list suffices. Slight gap: output_format options are left to the schema, but that is acceptable.

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 description adds value by synthesizing parameters into usage patterns (URL or workspace/repo with id/branch) and specifying what detail_level 'full' returns beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 a curated bundle of PR context in a single call' and lists exactly what's included (PR metadata, diffstat summary, build/review status, comment previews). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch individual components.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need a consolidated PR context bundle in one call. It also explains alternative input patterns (URL vs workspace/repo + id/branch) and suggests using 'full' detail level for richer output. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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