medeval_get_agent_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the term 'bounded context receipt', giving a slight hint about the returned data but nothing else. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction), but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification; it is concise but lacks substance that would be valuable for selection and invocation.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with three required parameters and an output schema. It does not explain what a 'bounded context receipt' is, what data it returns, or how the parameters relate. Even with an output schema, the description fails to give enough context for an agent to confidently call this tool.

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 has zero descriptions for the three parameters (workspace_id, run_id, agent_id), and the description provides no additional information about their meaning or formats. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their role or constraints, so it fails to compensate 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?

The description states a clear action ('Read') and a specific resource ('bounded context receipt for one agent in a selected run'). However, 'bounded context receipt' is domain jargon that is not explained, and the description does not clearly distinguish it from related tools like medeval_build_section_context. It is reasonably specific but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention any alternative, prerequisite, or condition for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from names alone.

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