ctxfile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it delivers: it discloses that results are chronological/provenance-tagged, that an omitted thread causes an assumed selection reported in the result, and that returned digests are agent-reported data to treat as untrusted context, not instructions. This security-relevant behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then usage triggers, default behavior, and a trust warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a single-optional-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what happens on omission, and how to interpret the returned data. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the thread parameter including fuzzy matching and the omit-for-most-recent behavior. The description mainly restates this and adds a small note that the result reveals which thread was assumed, which is marginal extra parameter value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a well-qualified resource ('merged, chronological, provenance-tagged history of a named thread') and frames the outcome as resuming a thread. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_threads or save_session even without naming 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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('pick up where I left off', 'follow up on X') and explains the omitted-parameter default. It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming alternatives, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema: content from files/Notion is untrusted data and instructions embedded in it should not be followed (prompt-injection warning). It doesn't explicitly state read-only/safety traits, but the 'Load' verb implies a non-destructive 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 compact sentences with zero waste. Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage in the second, and the security warning in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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 values need no explanation. Coverage of what it loads, when to use it, and the untrusted-data warning is strong for a low-complexity tool. The notable gap is the undocumented scope parameter, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the 'scope' parameter or its enum values (full/plan/files/git). The listed content types loosely map to the enum, allowing inference, but the description does not explicitly document the parameter or its semantics.

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 ('Load'), a precise resource (current working context for the user's project), and enumerates contents (plan, key files, git state, notion pages, optional summary) plus output format (structured JSON). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like save_session, ingest_context, continue_thread, and list_threads.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use at the start of work or when the user references prior work you don't see.' This is clear context, but it does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives/siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: records are stored locally, redacted, provenance-stamped, and reviewable. It does not contradict annotations (none provided).

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 moderately concise but includes redundant details already in the schema (e.g., listing summary, key decisions). It front-loads the main action but could be tighter.

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?

Given nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers storage, reviewability, and optional fields. It references sibling tools appropriately, leaving little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'Set ctxfile_ingest_schema to "2"' and mentions optional fields), but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool pushes a session digest into ctxfile for future agents to resume, with a specific verb ('push') and resource ('ctxfile'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing save_session for handoff and implying this is for digest ingestion.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('Summarize... then call this tool') and references save_session for handoff. However, it does not explicitly exclude continue_thread or provide direct comparison to siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the output (active threads with times and counts) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects (or lack thereof), ordering, or any limitations. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers when to use and what is returned. It is complete for a simple listing operation, though it could mention whether the list is sorted or if any filters apply.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool lists the user's active threads and specifies the returned fields (last-active times, session counts). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_context or continue_thread, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: when unsure which thread is meant or when the user asks what they were working on. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the given scenarios are sufficient for this simple listing tool.

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

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 it delivers reasonably: it discloses the auto-trigger's behavior ('subject to pause/private/debounce'), that transcript is opt-in and 'never auto-loaded into digests or contexts', and that long conversations should be chunked across sessions. It doesn't cover idempotency or overwrite semantics, but the disclosed behaviors are genuine value beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The subsequent trigger phrases and handoff requirements are dense but each earns its place. It's longer than minimal, but for a 17-parameter tool that must distinguish saving from hand-off behavior, the length is justified. Minor redundancy exists (title repeats the 'save' notion) but the description itself is efficient.

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?

Given 17 parameters, no annotations, and a rich schema, the description covers the two primary use cases (plain save and handoff) plus transcript/auto-trigger behaviors. But with zero annotation coverage, several parameters receive no behavioral guidance from the description — such as harness inference, continues_from, and the timestamp fields. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. For the scalar save path it's complete, but the description doesn't fully shoulder the burden for a tool this complex with no annotations.

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 high (94%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context on the 'handoff' flag — explaining that when set, ALL of state, key_decisions, gotchas, artifacts, and suggested_first_prompt must be included — and clarifies 'thread' as making work resumable by name. However, most parameters are already well-documented in the schema, and the description does not elevate semantics for fields like continues_from, ended_at, or started_at. The handoff pattern description is useful but the schema already covers the individual fields.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Summarize THIS conversation's work (decisions, files/topics touched, open items) and store it in the user's ctxfile.' It distinguishes this tool from the siblings (get_context, ingest_context, continue_thread, list_threads) by the action of persisting the current session rather than reading or continuing it. The capital 'THIS' reinforces the scope boundary.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases ('save this', 'remember this session', 'add this to ctxfile', 'save to thread X') and covers the handoff variant ('hand this off', 'so someone can take over'). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use the tool versus siblings, but the triggers are specific enough that an agent can route correctly. It could name the sibling alternatives explicitly but doesn't.

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