Unified Context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'tiered graceful degradation (full → warm → cold)' and the combined data sources (session state, user profile, lessons, guards, context pack, code-graph impact). This gives insight into the tool's internal behavior without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states the core function, second provides key behavioral nuance and differentiation. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, combined data sources, degradation tiers, and relationship to siblings. It doesn't detail the return structure, but listing the components implies what the context object contains. Slight gap for a fully self-contained description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't detail individual parameters but provides an overarching conceptual model (e.g., 'code-graph impact' hints at repoPath) that slightly enriches understanding. Still, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('Assemble') and clearly defines the resource ('complete, role-aware context object'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it 'Replaces multiple recall/retrieve/session_primer calls' as a single orchestrated request.

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 identifies when to use this tool: when a comprehensive, consolidated context is needed in one call, instead of making multiple recall/retrieve calls. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention lighter-weight alternatives.

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