lifeos_get_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states the operation is deterministic, does not perform vector search, and does not dump the vault, which sets clear expectations about scope and safety. However, it doesn't mention the return format beyond "snapshot" or any caching/idempotency guarantees, leaving a small gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 tightly worded and front-loaded, opening with the primary purpose in the first sentence and qualifying scope in the second. The final sentence partially repeats the "deterministic" qualifier but adds the useful negative constraints, so it mostly earns its place.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to enumerate return values, and it focuses appropriately on what is read and what is not done. It is nearly complete for a read-only bootstrap tool, though it could briefly mention the expected read-only/non-mutating nature to align with the absent annotations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on behavioral scope instead.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and resource (compact, deterministic bootstrap context snapshot) and enumerates exactly what is read (profile, communication instructions, current goals, active project overviews). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lifeos_search and lifeos_read_file by describing a scoped, read-only bootstrap operation.

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 clearly establishes this as a deterministic bootstrap operation that does not perform vector search or dump the vault, implicitly contrasting it with lifeos_search. It gives strong context for when to use it (bootstrap), though it doesn't name a specific alternative tool by name for the non-bootstrap case.

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