get_research_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-like retrieval operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, safety, or side effects. A simple 'read-only' statement would improve transparency.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose followed by parameter details. No filler words, front-loaded with main action, and structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers key aspects. It lacks detail on return format or variations between sections, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. Minor gap: does not mention if all sections return same structure.

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 description effectively explains both parameters: it lists allowed values for 'section' and clearly describes 'max_chars' including default and special value 0. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 retrieves research project context from the PKM, listing specific sections (overview, articles, milestones, methods) and contrasting with general-purpose siblings. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'research project context' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions it helps with research planning and writing, implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. For a tool with many siblings, more explicit guidance would improve differentiation.

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