redm-get-smart-context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'automatically loads relevant documentation,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like what 'intelligent context' entails, potential rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality: 'Get intelligent context based on query - automatically loads relevant documentation.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'intelligent context' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'context' includes, how relevance is determined, or what the return values look like. For a tool that likely involves nuanced behavior, more detail is needed to fully guide an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Your development query or task description.' The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as query format or examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get intelligent context based on query - automatically loads relevant documentation.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('intelligent context'), and mechanism ('based on query'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific documentation types (e.g., redm-get-lua-examples). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like redm-search-discoveries, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'automatically loads relevant documentation' but doesn't specify what makes it different from siblings like redm-search-framework-docs or redm-search-discoveries, nor does it outline any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative context results in a minimal score.

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