Life Context Pack

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that: it operates on the authenticated user, requires an API key, costs $0.20, and keeps location/money opt-in. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the pack's purpose and sections before adding usage and pricing details. Every sentence earns its place, though the spec URL and pricing are packed into the last sentence.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers authentication, cost, opt-in behavior, and section composition. The main gap is not explaining how this compares to get_life_context, given the overlapping name.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds only light grouping around a few include flags and a general opt-in note, but no significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 what the tool returns: a Life Context Protocol pack for the authenticated user with specific sections (identity, pulse, who_matters, whats_next, memories, quiz_results). It is a specific verb+resource definition, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_life_context.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to shape the response by passing include_relationships/include_memories/include_quiz_results as false, and clarifies that location and money are opt-in. It does not, however, state when to prefer this pack over sibling tools or individual getters.

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