get_agent_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely lists what is retrieved but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, behavior for missing/invalid sessionId, or potential side effects. This minimal disclosure falls short of what is needed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently lists the four primary data components, making it both concise and structurally sound.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the agent context includes. However, it does not cover behavior when sessionId is absent or the structure of the response, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter, sessionId, so schema descriptiveness is 100%. The tool's description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly enumerates the distinct components returned (persona, skills, memory summary, pipeline telemetry), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that deal with APK modification or memory graph query/update operations.

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 implies usage as the go-to tool for retrieving full agent context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like query_memory_graph or update_agent_memory. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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