context_get

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by mentioning 'deterministic ranking' and 'token budget', which imply predictable, constrained output. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior when token budget is exceeded) or clarify if the tool modifies state (contradicting the annotation only if 'build' is interpreted as mutation; but readOnlyHint=true suggests it is safe).

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, making it very concise, but it omits crucial information. While there is no wasted text, the lack of structure (e.g., parameter explanation) reduces its effectiveness.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how ranking works, or how parameters like memory_types affect behavior. The presence of readOnlyHint partially compensates, but the description leaves major gaps.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention any of the seven parameters (task, project_id, max_tokens, etc.). The agent receives no help understanding parameter roles, constraints, or defaults from the description.

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's function: building task-specific project context using deterministic ranking and token budget. It implies a distinct purpose from sibling tools like memory_read and memory_search, which likely retrieve raw memories rather than curated 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 such as memory_read or memory_search. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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