get_entry_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the composition of the returned context but does not disclose costs, size limits, or any edge-case behavior; with annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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, front-loaded action, colon-delimited facet list, and no filler. Every word contributes to scope or output composition.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description gives the agent enough to select and call it. It is only slightly weakened by the lack of explicit routing advice against sibling tools.

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?

With one parameter and schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description's phrase 'for an entry' helps map entry_id to the target entry, but it adds no format, provenance, or guidance for obtaining valid IDs. Minimal compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('full semantic context for an entry'), and enumerates the returned facets: topics, relationships, summaries, impact. The 'full' qualifier and the facet list distinguish it from sibling get_relationships or get_entry, which handle subsets.

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 only implies usage through 'full semantic context' and its four components. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_relationships, query_by_topic, or get_entry, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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