get_context

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the result is a scoped, ranked bundle with a known content mix, which tells the agent what it will get back. However, it says nothing about cost, token budgeting, staleness handling, or failure modes (e.g. missing `.cogz/`), all of which are live concerns given the max_tokens/include_stale parameters.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing guidance second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 5-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output content, and when to reach for it. It is incomplete only on parameter behavior (mode, max_tokens, include_stale), which is left undocumented everywhere, a notable but bounded gap rather than a missing core.

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 only 20% (repo alone is documented), so the description must compensate for mode, query, max_tokens, and include_stale — and it does not mention any of them. "For a task query" faintly gestures at the query parameter and "scoped" at max_tokens, but there is no explanation of modes or what include_stale changes.

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?

Specific verb ("Assemble") plus a clearly defined resource ("context pack") whose contents are enumerated: orientation, rules, relevant code, and knowledge. It also positions itself against adjacent behaviors ("reading files broadly", "a single search"), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like search or list_entities without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("at the start of substantial work on a topic") plus named alternatives it replaces ("instead of reading files broadly") and a scope calibration against both a broader pack and a single search. The only minor gap is no explicit when-not-to-use for trivial queries, but "substantial work" implies that boundary.

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