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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain how the optional parameters affect results, whether results are filtered or complete, whether there are access requirements, or how the ledger behaves with no parameters provided.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and not bloated, though the long list of return items makes it slightly dense and would benefit from a sentence that connects the return values to the optional parameters.

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?

The tool has no annotations and all five parameters are optional, so the description needs to explain selection semantics and parameter interactions; it does not. An output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered, but the core invocation context—what the ledger contains, how parameters narrow it, and what happens with no parameters—is missing.

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 description does not explicitly map the five parameters (decision, stage_id, source_id, reuse_class, workflow_id) to the listed output categories. Some loose inference is possible—'reuse policy' to reuse_class and 'workflow envelopes' to workflow_id—but the agent is left to guess how each parameter filters or scopes the returned data.

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 clear verb ('Return') and enumerates specific resources: context lineage, reuse policy, stage requirements, hashes, and workflow envelopes. This meaningfully distinguishes the tool from the many recipe siblings, especially under the secure_context prefix, though it does not explicitly name what it is not or scope its input.

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 usage: an agent would call this tool when it needs context lineage, reuse policy, stage requirements, hashes, or workflow envelopes. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related tools, and it does not mention any exclusion or alternative.

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