chain_code_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the default return content and restricts mode=slice, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, read-only status, output format, or how the limit-related parameters affect 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded, the default behavior is summarized, and the mode caveat is placed last. Every sentence contributes information.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It misses the meaning of most parameters, any prerequisites, and the shape/limits of the returned stream, making it only partially 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 7 parameters. It only clarifies the mode enum distinction (contract vs slice) and leave chainId, projectRoot, maxTotalChars, taskContextId, includeStructured, and maxLinesPerSymbol unexplained. Most parameters depend entirely on their schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and names a concrete resource ('contract-first stream along an architectural Chain'), with a list of what the default returns. It is clearly about retrieving code/contract information and is distinct from general graph or planning tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives usage guidance within the tool by distinguishing default contract mode from slice mode, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like project_map, graph_flow, or architecture_link_suggest. The context for using chain_code_stream is implied rather than explicit.

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