ctx_get

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: since returns deltas relative to a cursor and topic drills in. It says nothing about auth/permissions, result format, budget behavior, or whether the call is read-only, leaving real gaps for a context-fetch tool.

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?

Three telegraphic fragments, front-loaded with the resource and the when-to-call guidance; nothing is redundant. It borders on under-specification rather than excess, so it is tight but not wasteful.

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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain role/budget/project and the return shape. It covers only since and topic, leaving the agent guessing on the majority of the surface.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it explains since (cursor for deltas) and topic (drill in) but says nothing about role (an enum with 6 values), budget, or project. Three of five parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

"Shared project context" names the resource but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read/retrieval call (the name ctx_get and "Call at start" hint at it). It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like ctx_search or ctx_compile, so it lands at minimum-viable rather than clear.

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?

Gives concrete timing guidance ("Call at start") and conditional behavior ("pass since=<last CURSOR> later for deltas"), which tells the agent exactly when and how to re-invoke. It stops short of naming alternatives (ctx_search, ctx_commit) or stating when *not* to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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