Metis — Get Agent 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 and does well: it names the concrete files read (system-prompt.md, contract.md, skill.md, every *-context.md), describes what that content contains (methodology parameters, pipeline inventories, past decisions), and discloses the not-found fallback behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or permissions, but reads are strongly implied.

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 what and where are front-loaded in the first two sentences, the fallback behavior is stated before any parameter detail, and the Args block is short. The one expository sentence about turning a generic specialist into a knowledgeable one is mildly promotional but short and adds rationale rather than noise.

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?

A single-param read tool with an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary and the definition covers inputs and file semantics well. What is missing for a tool nestled among many similarly named context loaders is sibling disambiguation.

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% and the single parameter is a bare string with no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining agent_slug as the folder name of the agent and giving concrete examples ("archivist", "librarian"). The path template agents/{agent_slug}/ further clarifies format.

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?

States a specific verb (load) and resource (an agent's system prompt, contract, skill and project contexts) and enumerates the exact files read from agents/{agent_slug}/. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_context, load_project_context and get_research_context, which operate on different resources.

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 this applies (you have an agent slug and want its full context) and usefully documents the failure path — a missing agent returns a listing of all available agents. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over load_project_context or get_context, so routing is left to inference.

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