Retrieve Scoped Context

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that retrieval is deterministic and lexical, and by promising provenance and receipt hashes in the response. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the retrieval method and return contents. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler language.

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 rich annotations, fully covered parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains what is searched, how it is searched, and what is returned, leaving no important gaps for this relatively simple retrieval tool.

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 documents session_id, query, and limit adequately. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the 'current session context' relationship for session_id. 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 and resource: 'Search only the current session context'. It further specifies the retrieval method ('deterministic lexical retrieval') and the return contents ('provenance plus receipt hashes'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like context_put.

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 phrase 'Search only the current session context' clearly defines when this tool applies, and 'deterministic lexical retrieval' signals it is the right choice for exact lexical lookups within a session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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