kernel_agents_question_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, and it does useful work: 'Read-only' explicitly declares the safety profile, and the payload enumeration discloses exactly what data is exposed, including the asking agent's run steps. It stops short of covering error behavior for an unknown question_id or whether the context is a live view versus a snapshot.

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?

One sentence plus a front-loaded safety qualifier, with zero filler. The safety claim comes first and the payload enumeration follows, so the reader learns the essential facts immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical unknowns: side-effect profile and return contents. The remaining gap is minor - no indication of output shape/format or size of the returned context, which an agent might need for planning.

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?

There is a single required parameter (question_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, ID source, or lookup hints beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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-resource framing (read the full context of an escalated question) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: the question, the chief's reason, the 4 options, full context, and the asking agent's run goal/steps. It is clearly distinguishable from a write tool like questions_answer, though it never names a sibling to contrast with, which keeps it just short of a 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'escalated question' - an agent can infer you call this to gather everything before answering or triaging, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or that questions_answer/questions_triage_list are the alternatives. No prerequisites or ordering guidance are given.

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