context_resolve

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 transparently explains the multi-team behavior — that a project routinely has several teams simultaneously (session container team plus one per Workflow run) — and clarifies the 3-tier priority resolution for the singular 'team' field. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 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?

Well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by the infrastructure rationale, then clarifies the important teams vs team distinction, and ends with a concise return summary. Every paragraph earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to enumerate return values in detail. It's a read-only context retrieval tool with no parameters, and the description adequately handles the one subtle behavioral nuance (multi-team vs singular team) that could confuse callers. The role as infrastructure is well explained.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description confirms it takes no parameters and describes the return structure (Context dict with project/team/teams/agents), adding value about what the caller should expect.

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 gets the current active OS context including active project, teams, and member list. It distinguishes itself by establishing itself as 'the infrastructure for all simplified operations' and explains its role in auto-filling parameters for other tools, which differentiates it from siblings.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool — as a first call to establish context before using simplified operations. It explains that other tools (like Leader) use it to auto-fill parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the value proposition is clear enough given its foundational role.

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