get_context_at

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the behavior of as_of and match parameters, but omits behaviors for scope, assets, target_pct, and band. It does not state whether this is read-only or any side effects.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second explains two key parameters. No unnecessary words, but could be more structured.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers 2 parameters and does not differentiate from 7 sibling tools. It lacks guidance on how to use the other parameters or when to pick this tool over others.

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%. The description adds meaning for as_of (ISO timestamp) and match (at_or_before logic), but the other 4 parameters (scope, assets, target_pct, band) are not described at all, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 it loads a saved ContextBundle snapshot from ingest history, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_context_bundle, which might retrieve the current context.

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 for historical snapshots with ISO timestamp and matching logic, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives. It provides context but no exclusions.

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