get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' plus the content enumeration implies a safe, non-mutating fetch and tells the agent what fields come back, which is real disclosure. It says nothing about payload size/cost, latency, whether any state is marked as seen or advanced, or permissions — notable gaps for a tool that aggregates project state and conversation history.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload list, then the parameter rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content (what you get back) comes first. The dense parenthetical enumeration is long but each item earns its place by naming a distinct returned field.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of contract information. It does a fair job describing the return payload, which is the harder half, but leaves three of four inputs undocumented and gives no cost or side-effect signal. For a four-parameter aggregate-read tool, that is adequate but clearly short of complete.

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% across 4 optional params, so the description must compensate. It only addresses `selection` ('pass the node ids you are looking at'), leaving `params`, `region`, and `conversation` entirely undefined — an agent cannot tell what a region string looks like or what shape `conversation` objects take. The phrase 'current params' refers to returned data, not the `params` input, adding further ambiguity.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the context packet for a view') and then enumerates exactly what the packet contains: referents, params, history, labels, project state, budget, vocabulary. That enumeration makes the tool distinguishable from siblings like read_night_plan or list_vocabulary, which each return a subset of this payload. The jargon ('§1.4', 'the world's own situation') costs it a point, since an agent without the spec cannot decode those phrases.

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 only guidance is a parameter rule ('Pass the node ids ... omit them for the world's own situation'), which says how to call it, not when to prefer it. There is no statement about when to use this omnibus context read versus read_night_plan (budget) or list_vocabulary (vocabulary), despite clear payload overlap with both siblings. No when-not-use or exclusion is offered.

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