context

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns definition, callers, callees, and file siblings, which gives a clear picture of the output. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any potential performance implications, though these are less critical for a context 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 is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (definition, callers, callees, file siblings). It does not explain the radius parameter's impact or the output format, but the schema covers parameters. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core functionality.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions 'radius' indirectly via 'context' but does not elaborate on how it affects results.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'context around a symbol', and lists what that context includes: definition, callers, callees, and file siblings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code or path.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need context around a symbol), but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like trace_path or search_code. No negative guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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