file_context

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about surfacing past errors, lessons, related rules, and returning a risk score, with no contradiction.

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?

One compact sentence conveys the action, timing, content returned, and risk score. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning risk_score and the categories of returned information, but it does not describe the full return structure. Adequate for basic invocation, but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has no field descriptions, and the description only clarifies 'path'. The 'limit' and 'project' parameters are left unexplained, so the description provides only partial compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: call to surface past errors, lessons, and related rules for a file path, and returns a risk score. This clearly distinguishes it from generic memory recall tools and ties it to a pre-edit workflow.

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 'BEFORE editing a file', giving a clear trigger for use. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the primary use case is unambiguous.

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