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. It clearly discloses that the tool reads two specific files and lists agents if the slug is not found. This is adequate, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature, which is 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 description is three sentences plus an Args section, all front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no extraneous words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, parameter meaning, and edge case. The output schema covers return values, so the description is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning: 'Folder name of the agent' with examples ('archivist', 'librarian'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare parameter 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 'Load an agent's system prompt and contract', which is a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the exact files read and the behavior when the agent is not found, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_context or get_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_context or get_working_memory. The description only mentions the fallback listing of agents but does not set usage boundaries or prerequisites.

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