get_shared_context

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, permissions requirements, or return behavior. The description only indicates the resource type, leaving behavior mostly implicit.

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 that wastes no words. It conveys the core purpose and lists relevant categories, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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 getter tool with no output schema and multiple optional filters, the description should explain what is returned and how the optional key/category/project_id affect the result. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer the return format and filtering behavior.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description lists categories that match the enum, but this duplicates schema information and adds no additional meaning about how parameters combine or what formats are expected.

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 it retrieves shared context for a project and lists the main categories. It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_project_knowledge, which might serve a similar retrieval purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_shared_context or get_project_knowledge. The description only implies usage by naming the resource but provides no context or exclusions.

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