get_context

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: large outputs spill to a file and come back as a path, and the payload is project data rather than instructions. It does not state whether the file write is a side effect versus authorization requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded — purpose first, then call timing, then scope semantics, then output behavior — and every sentence carries information. The mid-description instruction to summarize the goal/state/next action is slightly expository but is actionable guidance rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the description still covers the important edge case of file spillover plus scope semantics. The only residue is that the interaction between budget_tokens and the file-spill threshold is not spelled out.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is met by the schema, but the description genuinely adds meaning by explaining each scope value (brief/state/knowledge/handoff/full) and that topics filters the knowledge scope. The budget_tokens parameter is only obliquely referenced via 'sized to a token budget' with no note on what happens near the cap.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Load a project's memory') plus the sizing constraint ('sized to a token budget'), which separates it from siblings like search_memory or list_projects. The scope enumeration further pins down exactly what kind of memory slice is returned.

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?

It states explicitly when to call it ('at the START of work on a project' with scope 'brief') and gives a follow-up workflow, which is strong usage context. It never names alternatives, though — e.g. when to prefer search_memory for targeted lookups or prepare_handoff versus the 'handoff' scope — so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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