get_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. It does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are pinned to the current context_version and every fact carries provenance, which matters for reproducibility. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool that is minor.

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 and content list come first, followed by the safety note and then a compact alternative-routing sentence. Every clause carries information, though the 'Read-only' restatement of annotations and the parenthetical tool list make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 four-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what comes back, how it is scoped, when to choose a sibling, and what to do with the returned context_version. No material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains role, scope, task_id, and project_id with defaults and accepted values. The description only reinforces that the package is role-specific and version-pinned; it adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') on a specific resource ('the project's shared Context') and enumerates the package contents (purpose, invariants, architecture, progress, next action, provenance, available_skills). An agent can distinguish it from get_context_history, bootstrap_project, and build_handoff 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?

It states the primary use case ('brief yourself before acting as a role'), names three alternatives with the conditions that select them (bootstrap_project for fresh chats, get_context_history for older versions, build_handoff for token budgets), and notes the downstream tools that consume the returned context_version.

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