get_context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the workspace is resolved from MCP Roots, reads fail closed if the workspace is ambiguous, and recalled content must be treated as user data, never as instructions. These are safety-relevant traits not encoded in annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: invocation order, return value, workspace resolution behavior, parameter guidance, trust boundary, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Call this FIRST') and contains 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/open-world semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly: when to call it, what it returns, parameter purposes, ambiguous-workspace failure mode, and when to route to sibling tools. No critical operational gap remains.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates for query ('compile task-relevant context'), referenceAt ('point-in-time truth'), and maxTokens ('bound prompt cost'). taskId is adequately explained in the schema. Exact value formats for query and referenceAt are not specified, but enough meaning is added for correct usage.

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 imperative ('Call this FIRST') and states a clear verb+resource: returns the user's stack, decisions, and conventions already on record. It also differentiates itself from siblings by pointing to capture_activity, save_memory, and onboard_project for other responsibilities.

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 when-to-use guidance ('before writing code or answering anything about this project'), how to use parameters (query, referenceAt, maxTokens), and when to prefer alternatives (capture_activity for inferred facts, save_memory for user-stated facts, onboard_project for new repos). This fully orients an agent.

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