context

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral detail: focused view requires entry_ids, follows declared dependencies in the fixed design, and pages related discussion. The caveat about omissions not being impact analysis or approval meaningfully scopes the tool, though 'Full is unchanged' remains opaque.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose, but its sentence fragments and phrases like 'Full is unchanged' reduce clarity. It avoids obvious filler, but the compression makes some statements too cryptic to be self-contained.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested arguments, multiple view modes, pagination, and no output schema, so the description should carry more explanatory weight. It gives high-level behavior but leaves key parameters and return/scope details under-specified.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meaning, but it only partially covers view and entry_ids. It does not explain basis, intent, discussion_limit, before_discussion_seq, work_id, or idempotency_key, and 'pages related discussion' does not clarify the pagination parameters.

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 gives a verb and resource ('Read work context') and distinguishes the full and focused views. However, 'work context' is generic, and 'Full is unchanged' is ambiguous without context, so it does not clearly separate this tool from siblings such as impact, why, or get_evidence_view.

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?

It states that focused view requires entry_ids and clarifies that explicit omissions are not an impact analysis or approval, which gives some when-not guidance. It does not explain when to choose full versus focused relative to each other or to sibling tools.

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