get_founder_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (returns varied data). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the output is 'organized by memory type (What I Know, Patterns I've Noticed, How You Operate)' and that it provides 'accumulated intelligence.' This goes beyond annotations by detailing the structure and nature of the intelligence returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and output structure, while the second provides clear usage guidelines. No redundant information, well-structured, and front-loaded with essential information.

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 zero-parameter tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns (full context dump organized by memory types) and when to use it (priming revenue conversations). The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't specify exact return format details, but it provides enough semantic context for effective use.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output characteristics.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a full context dump of everything Andru knows about this founder — organized by memory type.' It specifies the resource (founder context), the verb (get), and the organizational structure (memory types). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive founder intelligence rather than specific aspects like wellness, capability, or competitive positioning.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Used to prime any revenue conversation with accumulated intelligence.' This provides clear context for usage (revenue conversations) and implies it's for preparation rather than real-time analysis. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on holistic founder context rather than targeted assessments like fit scores or disqualification signals.

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