chain_code_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool returns only targeted AST symbol slices and interfaces rather than full files, and that it is token-efficient. It does not address error handling, side effects, or authentication expectations, but the 'Extract/Returns' framing implies a read-only operation.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds the key output characteristic and the main benefit. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to explain the parameter semantics and how the 'Chain' concept works; it does neither. It provides a high-level idea of the return content, but an agent could not confidently construct a correct invocation beyond guessing at chainId.

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%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. chainId is only vaguely implied by the word 'Chain', while projectRoot, maxTotalChars, and includeStructured are entirely unmentioned, leaving an agent without enough information to set optional parameters correctly.

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 a specific operation ('Extract an end-to-end code stream') on a specific resource ('an architectural Chain') and distinguishes its output scope ('targeted AST symbol slices and interfaces'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the AST-slice and token-saving framing makes its purpose reasonably distinct.

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 an end-to-end code stream along a Chain and want to avoid full file reads, as shown by the 'saving ~90% tokens' comparison. However, it does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling tool, so some inference is required.

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