get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that effort is an 'internal diagnostics tag' and should be left unset, adding useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it describe any side effects or prerequisites beyond the implied search hit. The word 'expand' suggests retrieval, but the description could be more explicit about safety and behavior.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action in the first sentence, then provides a clean argument list. Every sentence is informative, with no fluff 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?

For a simple, focused tool, the description is quite complete. It explains the core function, the required parameter's origin, and the internal nature of the optional parameter. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating how this tool relates to request_document, but overall it covers the essential context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: result_id is sourced from a search_docs hit, and effort is an internal diagnostics tag that clients should not set. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw schema, though it lacks examples or format details.

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 the tool's function: 'Expand a previous search hit to its full verbatim section (markdown).' This uses a specific verb (expand) and resource (search hit), and distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs and request_document by focusing on retrieving the full context of a specific hit.

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 when to use it: after a search_docs hit, by referencing 'previous search hit' and 'result_id from a search_docs hit.' It provides clear context for the intended workflow but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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