commonly_get_context

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does add the prerequisite-ordering behavior and the dependency on a separate read tool for file contents, but says nothing about how much "recent" data comes back, any limits, or result shape for a multi-section aggregate response.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the payload enumeration before the imperative guidance. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the quoted colloquial use-case phrase is slightly soft.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by section. What it leaves out is quantitative behavior (window size, truncation, ordering) that matters for an aggregate read an agent will rely on before posting.

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?

Only one parameter (podId, required) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — but it never mentions podId, its format, or how to obtain a pod ID. The omission is low-risk given the parameter's obviousness, but it is still a gap rather than added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (pod context) and enumerates the payload: recent messages, recent posts, members, shared files, pod metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling single-purpose readers like commonly_get_messages and commonly_get_posts by framing it as the aggregate context view.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ("Call this FIRST, before you post — never reply blind") and gives a use-case phrase ("what is this pod about right now?"). It also routes onward to commonly_read_file when the `files` list is non-empty, so both the entry point and the follow-up are named.

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