get_context

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 reveals key behaviors: detects project from cwd, returns ~300-600 token overview, truncates by relevance not age, and supports two formats. It implies a read-only operation without stating so explicitly, and doesn't mention potential side effects, but the description is largely transparent.

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 well-structured: a clear opening instruction, a compact summary of functionality, and a tidy Args list. Every sentence contributes value, and it remains readable despite covering multiple aspects.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, workflow, parameters, and output characteristics. It is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call it, and what to expect in return.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains every parameter with meaningful details (e.g., 'max_tokens: Token budget for the dense format — truncated by relevance, not by age.'). It adds clarity beyond the schema, especially for format and max_tokens.

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 purpose: to auto-inject relevant context at the start of a session, with a specific output (compact overview of pointers and stats). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is the first tool to call for session context, unlike search/recall tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST' and provides a follow-up action ('Drill into anything with expand_memory(ids=[...])'). It also explains when to set task_description to improve relevance, giving clear context for use.

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