get_task_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces these with 'Read-only.' It adds value by disclosing the output formats (JSON default or Markdown) and the adaptive-by-task-type behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present, and the extra output-format detail goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives direct usage guidance, and the third handles sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 six parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-or-not decision and high-level output shape. It names the context contents (execution paths, tests, entry points) and output formats, though it does not enumerate the exact JSON fields returned; this is a minor gap for an all-in-one context tool but not blocking.

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 schema already explains all six parameters, including task, focus, detail_level, token_budget, include_tests, and output_format. The description does not need to compensate for parameter gaps and adds only general context about output format, which is already reflected in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as the all-in-one context for starting a dev task, listing concrete contents (execution paths, tests, entry points) and how it adapts by task type. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_feature_context, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use as your FIRST call when beginning any new task' and frames it as a replacement for manually chaining search → get_symbol → Read. It also directs narrower feature-code lookups to get_feature_context, providing a clear alternative and exclusion condition.

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