get_task_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially does so. "Citations, constraints, freshness and explicit budget overflow" hints at returned content and at what happens when the token budget is exceeded, but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, truncation behavior, or cost — all left to inference.

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?

One sentence with no filler is commendably compact and the scope hint comes first. The compactness comes at the cost of clarity, though: the sentence is a stack of bare noun phrases rather than a readable statement of behavior.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this fragment is not enough to call it correctly. The agent knows roughly what topic the result covers but not how parameters shape it or what comes back.

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% across four parameters (goal, session_id, token_budget, changed_files), yet the description explains none of them. The word "budget" faintly gestures at token_budget, but the relationship between changed_files and what context is returned — arguably the core selection logic — is never stated.

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?

"Get whole-record context" gives a verb and an object, but "whole-record" is undefined jargon — the agent cannot tell whether this returns a file, a session, a decision log, or an assembled bundle. Nothing in the sentence distinguishes it from siblings like get_session_handoff or query_memory, which also sound like context retrieval.

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 at all: no conditions, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools. The agent must guess whether this replaces or complements query_memory and get_session_handoff.

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