get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves content and metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), performance (e.g., response time), or side effects (e.g., caching). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a specific context by its ID') and adds necessary detail ('including full content and metadata'). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and what is returned, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps in context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'context_id' documented as a UUID for identifying the context. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the ID is used to retrieve the context, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve') and target ('a specific context by its ID'), and specifies what is included ('full content and metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_contexts (which lists multiple) or get_context_stats (which provides statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_raw_url or other retrieval siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contexts (for browsing), search_contexts (for filtering), or get_raw_url (for raw data). It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid context_id) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations).

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