get_injection_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions returning a bundle but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and purpose. No wasted words, and the key hook names are front-loaded.

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 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, parameter usage, or behavior for missing context, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0%. The description ties the event_type parameter to the named hooks (PostCompact, UserPromptSubmit) but offers no explanation for project_hint, max_constraints, or max_facts. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's enum.

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 returns a 'compact constraint+fact bundle' for specific hooks to re-inject after context loss. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings that handle other operations like search, export, or contradictions.

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 indicates the tool is for use in PostCompact or UserPromptSubmit hooks when context loss occurs, specifying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list implies context.

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