get_context

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a structured set of information (stack, task type, rules, thresholds, naming conventions, workflow) and includes an example. No side effects are implied, and the read-only nature is clear.

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 concise and well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and critical 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?

Given the tool's purpose (returning context for coding), the description covers all necessary details: when to use, what it returns (including detailed items like naming conventions and TDD workflow), and a usage example. No output schema exists, but the return structure is well described.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds an example call but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The example is helpful but not essential.

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 it returns coding standards, guardrails, and workflow, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'context'. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like init, search, and verify, which have different purposes.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly advises calling this tool FIRST before writing any code, for new features, bugfixes, or when unsure about conventions. This strong directive is highly actionable.

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