query_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search returns 'most semantically similar stored contexts' which implies a ranking/retrieval operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'search').

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 perfectly concise - two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and return behavior with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important contextual information about the search mechanism, result format, limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what 'returns' means in practice.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'natural language query' which matches the schema's 'query' description, but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 purpose: 'Search for relevant context based on a natural language query. Returns the most semantically similar stored contexts.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('stored contexts'), and mechanism ('semantically similar'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stats' which might also retrieve context information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'add_context' for adding data or 'delete_context' for removal, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for semantic search versus other retrieval methods.

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