bridge_context_pull

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Pull' implies a read operation, but nothing states permissions, whether results are truncated or paginated, ordering, or how the 72h-corrections subset relates to the 7-day window; for a tool with three scoping parameters this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the colon-list efficiently enumerates payload contents. It is dense with domain jargon ('seams', 'leases') but that is a clarity tradeoff rather than verbosity.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain scoping and return shape but does not. An agent can guess it retrieves recent context but cannot confidently construct a call or predict the result.

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%, so the schema gives only names and types. The description's '7-day' hints at the days parameter's default, but it says nothing about what repo and team scope (single value? filter on repo vs org?), nor whether days overrides the 7-day window.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('7-day org context') and enumerates the content types returned (tasks, quotes, citations, decisions, leases, seams, briefs, corrections). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling bridge_context, which by name sounds like the same retrieval, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (bridge_context, bridge_brief_latest, bridge_seam, bridge_fact). Usage is only implied by the word 'Pull'.

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