get_injection_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'compact constraint+fact bundle' and 're-inject' but gives no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if data is missing. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded. A small amount of additional detail would be acceptable without sacrificing conciseness.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, error conditions, or behavior for different event_types. The tool has four parameters but no guidance on how they affect the output.

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%, yet the description adds no information about any of the four parameters (event_type, project_hint, max_constraints, max_facts). It does not explain the enum options for event_type or the meaning of the other parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on the 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 returns a 'constraint+fact bundle' for specific hooks ('PostCompact / UserPromptSubmit') after context loss. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('constraint+fact bundle'), and differentiates from siblings like 'get_constraints' and 'get_context_for_action' by focusing on re-injection after context loss.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after context loss for PostCompact/UserPromptSubmit hooks. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use it.

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