global_context

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the output shape (buckets per entity type, summaries, stale counts) but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what 'stale' means or how staleness is computed, or whether the index is live or cached. For an index tool, the definition of staleness is essential behavioral context and is missing.

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 20-word sentence with no filler and front-loads its defining term. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance. It earns a 4, not a 5, because it omits the two parameters despite having room to address them.

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 no annotations, no output schema, two undocumented parameters, and 23 siblings, the description leaves critical invocation details unresolved: what limit and dataset do, whether the call is safe/read-only, and whether the result contains stale items or only counts of them. The one-line overview is not enough for an agent to call this tool correctly without guessing.

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% for both parameters, and the tool description mentions neither limit nor dataset. An agent cannot determine what limit caps (number of buckets? entries within a bucket?) or whether dataset filters the index or switches to a dataset-scoped view. With zero schema coverage and zero description compensation, the parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific resource (the global context index) and specifies its structure: one bucket per entity type, with a summary and a stale count. The 'global' scope helps distinguish it from session-scoped siblings like session_get and session_timeline. However, there is no explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it never names a sibling it is not, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its 23 siblings. It does not state whether to prefer it over recall, history, session_get, or describe_ontology for a given question, and it offers no exclusions or alternate routing. The usage context is only vaguely implied by the word 'global', which is insufficient.

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