get_agent_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the specific files read (system-prompt.md and contract.md) and the path structure, and the fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, auth requirements, or any side effects.

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 remarkably concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by specific details and a parameter docstring. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which covers return format) and the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, files read, fallback behavior, and parameter. Lacks guidance on when to use but is adequate for the tool's straightforward nature.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a clear explanation for the parameter (folder name with examples), compensating effectively. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 loads an agent's system prompt and contract from RC, specifying the verb (load) and resource (system prompt and contract). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on agent-specific context files, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar context tools like get_context.

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 only mentions behavior when agent is not found (lists available agents). It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_context or get_research_context, nor any prerequisites or constraints.

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