Consult slicing knowledge

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it composes principles per situation, never returns preset bundles, and falls back to other tools if empty. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a critical usage rule, a fallback note, and a practical recommendation guideline. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 single parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, when to call it, its fallback behavior, and how to use its output. However, it does not elaborate on the exact content of 'slicing knowledge' or the structure of the returned principles, which could be a minor gap.

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 schema has one required 'query' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by clarifying the query can be a topic, symptom, or intent, but it does not specify expected format (e.g., natural language vs. keywords) or provide examples, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 retrieves curated slicing knowledge and saved context notes for a topic, symptom, or intent. It uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (slicing knowledge + context notes), and differentiates from siblings by noting it composes principles per situation rather than returning preset bundles.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'ALWAYS call before deriving or changing settings for a user goal,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also mentions fallback to find_config_keys/web search, providing an alternative path, and gives presentation guidance for recommendations, all of which help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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