get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behaviors like BM25 search for queries, returning stored payload from saved files, and normalizing context. It does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, but the nature of returning context implies no side effects.

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 well-structured with paragraphs for different parameter usage and front-loads the main purpose. It is informative but could be slightly more concise; however, every sentence adds value.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and having an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and two key parameter cases. It explains the primary use and special features well, though not all parameters are individually described. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `owner` and `query` by explaining their use cases, and mentions that `target` can point to a saved file. However, other parameters like `intent`, `include_source`, `max_related`, and `change_type` are not elaborated beyond their names.

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: "Primary tool. Returns normalized file, symbol, relationship, and impact context before editing." It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (context), and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the primary tool for context retrieval before editing.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the `owner` and `query` parameters, such as "Pass ``owner`` (for example the enclosing class) when a symbol name is ambiguous" and "Pass ``query`` as a free-text description when you do not know the exact file or symbol." It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear.

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