get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get everything known' and 'traversal,' but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given the tool name and context, a slight inference is needed, but it is acceptable.

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 well-structured into two paragraphs: the first explains functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 is present, so the description need not specify return format. It adequately describes the scope of results (facts and connections) and provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool. Slight ambiguity remains about the exact structure of the returned data, but it is not critical.

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 schema description for 'topic' is present and clear ('Topic, person, project, or domain to explore'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description further elaborates on the parameter by relating it to the tool's purpose, adding moderate value beyond the schema.

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 everything known about a topic, combining search with entity relationship traversal.' It also explicitly differentiates from search_knowledge, making the tool's unique value obvious.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when you need the COMPLETE picture...' and 'Prefer search_knowledge when you want one fact fast; prefer this when missing a connection would make your answer wrong.' This leaves no ambiguity about the appropriate scenarios.

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