get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful safety disclosure, and 'token-budgeted... biased toward failures and decisions' hints at selection behavior. However, it does not explain how the token budget truncates content, how the bias is applied, or whether the block is derived from a live or cached state.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence is information-dense, and the second provides a safety-relevant flag. Every word 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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are documented, and an output schema exists, so the description need not repeat return formats. However, it leaves ambiguities: what counts as 'failures' and 'decisions,' how the token budget shapes the result, and how this context block relates to the many sibling context tools. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for tool selection.

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 100%: focus, tokens, and recent_days already have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the token-budget concept, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource ('context block') and a specific selection bias ('failures and decisions'), plus a token-budgeting mechanism. It is clear about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_summary or get_project_map, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need a token-limited summary focused on failures/decisions, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make another sibling tool more appropriate.

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