context

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is cheap in cost, and that it aggregates multiple context sources into one answer, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any rate limits, side effects, or failure behavior, leaving a gap in transparency for an agent assessing risk.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a cost flag ('CHEAP'), states what the tool does in one sentence, and closes with a usage directive. Every clause earns its place, and no redundant phrasing exists. It is front-loaded with the most relevant 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?

Despite having an output schema, the input side is underdescribed: four parameters at 0% schema coverage, and the description only really explains `path` and vaguely implies `repo`. The tool's purpose and workflow are clear, but an agent would be left guessing about `limit`, `query`, and behaviors when parameters are omitted. For a call that is meant to be the session-start, this level of completeness is insufficient.

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 and explain parameters. It only clarifies `path` ('the code at `path`') and indirectly touches on `repo` via the 'repo log.' The `limit` and `query` parameters receive no explanation at all, so an agent cannot confidently infer their meaning or usage from the description. This is a significant inadequacy.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource: system notes for the code at `path`, open tasks, reference notes, and the tail of the repo log, delivered in one answer. It also frames itself as the session-start call, which distinguishes it from siblings like search and read_file. This is a focused, unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use it before searching blind,' giving a clear directive on when to call this tool (at session start, before exploration/search). It does not spell out when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name, but the placement and 'session-start' framing strongly imply the intended workflow. Sibling tools like search are addressed contextually.

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