context_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload (stored value, size, age, description) and the not_found behavior for missing keys, which is strong transparency for a simple read operation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action, return value, error case, and intended use are all packed in efficiently, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, this description is complete. It covers what it reads, how to reference it, what is returned, what happens on failure, and why an agent would use it.

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?

The schema explains the key parameter minimally, but the description adds meaningful context: the key refers to something saved with context_write, and reads of unset keys return not_found. This adds value beyond the schema even though schema coverage is already 100%.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it reads back context by key, referencing context_write as the complementary write operation. It also clarifies the difference from pure key listing by saying it returns the stored value plus metadata, so an agent can distinguish it from context_list.

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 says when to use it: to inspect a shared blob or consume context another agent wrote. It does not name alternatives like context_list or context_delete for exclusion, but the intended use cases are clear enough for selection.

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