fenbs_get_context

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return structure (Rules shown in full, context notes, counts of decisions/open questions, pre-approvals) and a critical behavioral constraint -- the Rules are binding and must be followed. It doesn't discuss permissions or limits, but for a read tool that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative and the ordering constraint, then flows through contents and the parameter. Slightly dense, but each sentence adds operative information rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back -- and it does in detail (Rules, notes, counts, pre-approvals). Combined with the sequencing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly at the right moment.

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 already 100% on the single 'project' parameter, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: passing project augments board-level context with that project's own rules and notes, and it warns to scope to only the active project. This is value beyond the schema's terse 'by name' text.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (AI context for this board) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exchange it opens with (the Rules) and the call it follows (fenbs_whoami). An agent knows exactly what this retrieves versus fenbs_list_decisions or fenbs_list_context_notes.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('before touching the work', 'straight after fenbs_whoami') and an exclusion ('only ask for the project you are working on'), steering the agent away from scanning all projects. This is when-to-use and when-not in the same breath.

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