Context Stuff Lessons

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it returns a text block, bypasses RAG/search, sorts by confidence, and fits within a token range. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the read-only nature. No contradictions. It adds context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add relevant context. No wasted words.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and typical expectations. It could mention truncation behavior, but overall complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning token budget scale and format options, but does not provide extensive new meaning beyond the schema.

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: dumping all prevention lessons into a single text block for context injection. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it bypasses RAG/search and returns every lesson sorted by confidence.

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 context on when to use the tool (for context-window injection, bypassing search) and typical project sizes (20-200 lessons). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, relying on implicit contrast with search tools.

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