get_person_context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: minimal-disclosure output, narrow identity fields, active relationships and affiliations, a capped ranked facts/interactions slice, optional communication traits, sensitive-record suppression with no trace, and the truncated flag. This is rich behavioral context that helps an agent trust and interpret the result.

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 dense but efficient, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: input routing, return contents, optional communication inclusion, and privacy/truncation semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses code formatting to keep parameters readable.

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 output schema exists and the tool has five optional parameters, the description covers all necessary input semantics, output shaping, privacy behavior, and truncation signaling. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without further inference.

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 compensates by explaining every parameter: person_id, person, max_items, include_communication, and purpose (via the communication mention). It even documents special values and edge cases like ambiguous names returning candidates.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble a minimal-disclosure context bundle for one person.' It clearly states what the tool returns and even ties person_id to resolve_person, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_person_timeline or get_consolidation_context.

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 gives concrete input-routing guidance: pass person_id from resolve_person, or pass person to resolve inline, with ambiguous names returning candidates instead. This is clear operational context, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling context tools.

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