Ctx Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance by explaining that it re-derives invariants from every stored chunk and reports coverage. It stops short of disclosing cost implications of scanning an entire session or what happens when coverage is incomplete, so it adds value but not full behavioral context.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the mechanism in the parenthetical enumeration. No filler or restated naming; the only slight redundancy is between the lead sentence and the re-derivation explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain the coverage report's shape, and the tool is low-complexity with one optional parameter. That said, the missing session_id semantics and the lack of any differentiation from ctx_verify leave the definition adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 single parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The default of "default" and the meaning of a missing or unknown session_id are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource: verify that stored context lost nothing critical, with an explicit mechanism (re-deriving invariants such as numbers, paths, URLs, versions, constraints from every chunk). This is far more specific than the name alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named siblings ctx_verify, ctx_health, and ctx_stats, so an agent must guess which verification tool is which.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusions; the only implied usage is a post-store sanity check. With ctx_verify, ctx_health, ctx_stats, and ctx_profile all in the sibling set, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to infer which tool answers which question.

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