Get retrieval/context applicability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the tool 'never mutates any state and returns no rules or enforcement data,' and it specifies the empty-input behavior ('When both inputs are omitted or empty, both match lists are empty'). It also clarifies that paths are not glob-evaluatedable, which is valuable non-obvious behavior.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core purpose, key exclusions, safety behavior, and empty-input edge case with no redundancy. The main function is front-loaded and every sentence 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 read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with a rich output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, safety, exclusions, and boundary behavior. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-described in the schema (paths as opaque retrieval context, context as opaque strings with case-insensitive substring matching). The description adds the empty-input result behavior and reinforces the non-glob semantics, but it does not substantially add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return proposals and canonical decisions whose scope hints or context scope overlap the supplied context/paths.' It clearly differentiates this from typed-rule applicability by explicitly noting it is 'retrieval/context applicability only' and not ADR-020. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 clear context and exclusions: it is for retrieval/context applicability, not typed-rule applicability, and paths are never glob-evaluated. It also clarifies that no rules or enforcement data are returned. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for when to use them instead, so it lacks the full when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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