navvi_context

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the behavior of each action, including that remove is a soft-delete and included in the next digest, and that digest returns a current summary plus undigested entries. However, it lacks details on limits, authentication, or idempotency.

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 relatively long but well-structured with bullet-style action listings and examples. Each sentence provides valuable information, justifying its length. It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

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 7 parameters and 7 actions, the description covers most behavioral aspects. It mentions return values for digest (current summary + undigested) and save_digest (stores and marks processed), but does not specify output for other actions. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates by illustrating each parameter through examples (action, persona, summary, source, tags, query, context_id). While not formal parameter descriptions, the examples effectively convey semantics.

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's a persistent knowledge store for a persona, listing 7 actions with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tool navvi_milestone by explaining that milestones are actions done while context is knowledge. The verb-resource structure is explicit.

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 example invocations for each action, which serve as usage patterns. It differentiates context from milestones, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other sibling tools like navvi_account or navvi_persona. The examples indirectly guide selection.

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