get_energy_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which establishes the safety profile. The description is consistent with this and adds that the result is a 'complete canonical' context for one horizon, but it gives no further behavioral details such as response contents or potential errors. Given the annotations cover the main behavior, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Despite having an output schema and read-only annotations, the parameter contract is too vague. An agent cannot reliably construct the 'horizon' object from the description alone, and there is no guidance about the content or format of that nested object. The tool is simple, but the missing horizon semantics leave an important gap.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'horizon' is an open object with no structure. The description only says the operation is 'for one requested horizon,' which adds minimal meaning but does not explain what fields or format the horizon object should contain. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('complete canonical energy context') and scope ('one requested horizon'). It clearly distinguishes an energy-context read operation from sibling tools like get_state by naming the domain and completeness.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_state, validate_plan, or explain_solution. The description implies a read use case but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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