get_game_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a 'compact project graph' is built, without explaining what that entails (e.g., scanning files, aggregation, potential cost). The word 'compact' hints at limiting size but does not detail behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose clearly and efficiently.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: the nature of the returned graph, whether it is a read-only operation, and how parameters influence behavior. While the tool appears simple, the description is too sparse to give an AI sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description does not mention any parameters or how they affect the output, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions of maxFiles and includeScripts.

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 primary action ('Build') and the deliverable ('compact project graph'), with an explicit purpose ('for AI-assisted game understanding'). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on specific game object operations.

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 phrase 'for AI-assisted game understanding' implies a general use case, but there are no explicit guidelines about when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_scene_tree or list_files. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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