Context Get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses the `budget_tokens` cap, that path/query matches arrive focused with the start of content while the rest show only title/summary/key, how `sensitive` is set, and which scopes are included/excluded (substituted, obsolete and ephemeral items omitted). Permissions and performance characteristics are the main gaps.

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?

Well front-loaded with bold section headers (Use quando / Retorna / Exemplo / Notas) that let an agent skim. The 'Retorna' field list duplicates what the existing output schema already specifies, which is the only wasted line; the rest is dense and 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description supplies the usage triggers, scoping semantics, budget behavior and inclusion/exclusion rules an agent needs to call it correctly. With an output schema present, the explicit return-field listing is redundant, and `connection_id` remains undocumented, but overall it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: `paths` (scoped rules for those files), `query` (related items), `project` (shown as project=".") and `budget_tokens` (results capped within it) all gain meaning. Only `connection_id` is left unexplained in both schema and 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?

States a specific resource clearly: a project context bundle covering rules, context, decisions, patterns and procedures. The retrieval verb is only implicit ('context_get') and no sibling is named directly, though the note that focused items 'dispensa item_get' hints at the item_get overlap. Clear but not fully differentiated from item_get/item_search in the purpose line itself.

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 '**Use quando:**' block gives explicit triggering conditions: starting on a project (when the hook hasn't injected) or moving into another area, with `paths` for scoped rules and `query` for related items. It covers when to reach for this tool but does not lay out explicit when-not rules beyond the hook case.

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