get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals cross-session persistence, shared updates by other agents, and the exact return envelope (version, now, diagnostics, warnings/hints), which is significant unobservable behavior beyond a simple read.

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?

Although longer than a one-liner, the description is dense and well-structured: a front-loaded warning, a list of contained fields, and a clear explanation of return fields. Every clause contributes meaningful information without repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the agent receives, why it matters, and when to consult it. It also explains the collaborative nature (shared memory) and the diagnostics/warnings features, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter expectations. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter details to explain; the description appropriately focuses on the output and usage context.

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 explicitly states what get_context does: it returns the persistent execution memory containing vision, sketch, milestones, tasks, notes, and references. The verb 'Read this first' plus the enumerated contents clearly distinguishes it from specific sibling tools like list_tasks or get_presence.

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 provides clear context for when to use it ('Read this first', 'check regularly') and notes that other agents update it, explaining the coordination benefit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough for selection.

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