Metis — Get Research Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions what information is retrieved but does not state that it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the context is missing. The safety profile is unclear.

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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by parameter documentation. It is front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args' section adds value but could be slightly more concise. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 availability of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics. It does not describe the return value structure, but this is handled by the output schema. The description is complete enough for effective usage.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for both parameters. For 'section', it enumerates valid values ('overview', 'articles', 'milestones', 'methods'). For 'max_chars', it explains the default, purpose, and special value 0 for no limit. This compensates for the schema's zero description coverage.

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 and lists specific information types (structure, articles, milestones, methods). The name and title align, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_context' or 'get_project_status' by focusing on research 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 implies use for research planning and writing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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