crbro_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Read or update' but doesn't explain how reading is triggered (e.g., calling with no parameters) or what the update semantics are (e.g., replacement vs merge for set_topics). The schema only shows update params, leaving read behavior ambiguous.

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 one sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read or update the active working context') followed by a compact list of tracked items. No wasted words.

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?

With only three optional update parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify how to invoke read vs update and what the return value is. The current description leaves this ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already explain each field. The description adds a high-level mapping by mentioning 'current topics, pending tasks,' which aligns with set_topics, add_pending, and resolve_pending, but it doesn't go beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool reads or updates the active working context, mentioning the tracked elements (current topics, pending tasks, last session). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crbro_status or crbro_session_log, but the resource is distinct.

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 for managing the active working context by mentioning what it tracks, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives. Sibling tools exist for related but distinct purposes, yet no exclusions are given.

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