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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description lists the data types returned, but it doesn't disclose that an aggregated call may return a large payload spanning four data sources, nor any volume or formatting implications. It adds the session-start context but omits size/weight expectations for a multi-source retrieval.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and components; the second adds a third-person usage directive. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information (what it returns) comes first.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description carries substantial burden, and it covers the data components returned and the recommended invocation time. The only gap is a lack of any indication of response format, size, or structure for the aggregated result — minor for this kind of 'grab everything' tool but worth disclosing.

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% — the 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema with default (7), range (1–90), and a clear description ('Days of work history and commits to include'). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, which matches the high-coverage baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a clearcapable resource ('full personal context'), and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: playbook, this week's agenda, recent work log, and commits. The phrase 'in one call' explicitly distinguishes this aggregation tool from the individual getters among its siblings (get_playbook, get_agenda, get_work_log, get_commits).

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?

'Call at session start' provides an explicit, actionable trigger condition that tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., it doesn't say 'for just one component use the dedicated getter'), leaving some routing to inference.

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