context_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the security boundary ('reads never escape that root'), the hard refusal of `.git/`/`.env*`, the `not_configured` failure mode, the `skipped` reporting mechanism with reasons and `complete:false`, the no-silent-truncation guarantee, and the untouched-store guarantee when nothing can be packed. This is model-friendly and trust-building.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct information: the core value proposition, the usage pattern, the spec syntax, the safety boundary, the configuration prerequisite, and failure semantics. It is front-loaded with 'Point, don't paste' and flows logically from motivation to mechanics to edge cases. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what inputs are expected, how to form paths, what happens on configuration failure, how partial failures are surfaced, and how the result is consumed by sibling tools. The only minor omission is the exact success return shape, but the 'skipped/complete' references make the contract understandable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description raises it by adding meaning beyond the schema. It specifies the default character budget (~24000), the project-root configuration requirement (config or env var), and the semantics of spec formats. These details help an agent pick good values and anticipate failure without needing extra research.

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 opens with a memorable, specific framing — 'Point, don't paste' — and then states the exact function: name files and optional line ranges, have the server read them, apply a character budget, and store the bundle under `key` on the context bus. It clearly distinguishes this from the ask/council siblings by explaining that the context_ref from this tool is then passed to them.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: instead of hand-pasting code when the repo isn't visible to the model, with the local server reading files. It also explains the follow-up flow — pass `context_ref='<key>'` on `ask`/councils. It does not explicitly contrast with context_write/context_read siblings, but the 'don't paste' instruction strongly implies the file-based use case.

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