get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses rechecking of map verification, stale/unknown verification requiring fresh review, recordedVerdict preserving history, semantic distinctions for proposals/legacy/accepted records, and impact limits. These are genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 dense but every clause contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose before caveats. It is longer than the minimum, but the density is warranted given the behavioral nuances and absent annotations.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description outlines what the assembled context contains and important constraints. It lacks an explicit return-value shape or explicit alternative routing, but for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light value by mentioning 'task and optional files' and noting that impact covers up to three unique files, but it does not substantially extend the schema's already-complete parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assemble task context') and names the precise resource: matching decisions with rationale, approval, owner, sources, freshness, tests, file impact, and map entries. This clearly distinguishes get_context from decision-writing, review, verification, and impact-only sibling tools.

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 gives clear contextual conditions: 'No initialization or map required' and 'Pass task and optional files.' This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate without prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for intended use.

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