get_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the token budget scoping, which clarifies that output is size-limited, but does not detail output format or behavior when budget is exceeded. This is similar to the calibration example and warrants a 3.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action and scope. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and annotations provide safety context, but there is no output schema or explanation of return value format. The description does not clarify how token_budget affects content (e.g., truncation) or what 'context' includes. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it only mentions 'task-scoped project context' and 'token budget,' which indirectly references project, task, and token_budget. It does not explain the 'mode' parameter or provide any additional semantics beyond the schema. With 4 parameters, this is insufficient compensation.

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's function: 'Get task-scoped project context within a token budget.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('task-scoped project context'), and a key constraint ('token budget'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_context and get_runbook.

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 when to use the tool (when needing context for a specific task in a project, constrained by tokens) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context without exclusions.

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