never4ga_context_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what form the returned 'context' takes, whether depth affects latency or cost, or any caching or rate-limit behavior. The depth semantics in the schema hint at behavioral gradation, but the description adds nothing beyond the phrase 'at a stated depth'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the usage condition. There is no filler or repetition.

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 input schema is complete and self-describing, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return format, safety profile, and behavioral differences between depth levels unspecified. It is minimally adequate for a context-retrieval tool but has clear gaps.

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 every parameter including the depth enum and default value is already documented. The description only vaguely restates 'terms' and 'depth' and adds no syntax, format, or interaction guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (fetch more context) on a specific object (particular terms) and notes a scoping parameter (stated depth). It implicitly differentiates from the startup pack by positioning itself as the follow-up step, though it does not name the sibling never4ga_context_startup explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it when the startup pack was insufficient or work shifted to an unfamiliar area. It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the condition itself routes the agent correctly relative to context_startup.

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