ck_context_pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral details like query synthesis when omitted (query optional), default top_k=5, default detail_level='compact', and states it is 'read-only' which is consistent with annotations. These go beyond annotation info.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of about 5 sentences. It's fairly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but no wasted sentences.

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 presence of output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, annotations covering safety, and sibling differentiation, the description is complete. No gaps in explaining what the tool does, when to use it, or how parameters work.

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 has 83% description coverage. Description adds meaningful context: query is optional and auto-synthesized, top_k controls number of memory hits (default 5), detail_level has 'compact' default. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states it builds a compact, citation-enriched context bundle for the current session and task, and distinguishes from sibling ck_context by specifying use cases (focused query-driven bundle vs full session snapshot).

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 tells when to use ck_context_pack vs ck_context: 'Prefer ck_context_pack over ck_context when you need a focused, query-driven bundle for a specific sub-task rather than the full session snapshot. Use ck_context at the start of a session for full mission state; use ck_context_pack mid-task to fetch targeted prior knowledge.'

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