Build bounded agent context

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavior of aggregation (from multiple source types: direct relations, conventions, incidents, project context) and boundedness ('compact context bundle', 'limit' defaults). However, it doesn't describe what happens when no data is found for a category, or how current the data is. With strong annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose with concrete content types; the second provides an actionable usage recommendation. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool outputs a context bundle (with an output schema present), so the description need not explain return values. It enumerates the source types that feed the bundle, names the intended workflow use-case, and the annotations + schema cover the safety and parameter dimensions. For a read-only aggregation tool, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (cardId and limit) fully. The description adds value by explaining that the bundle is 'centred on' the card and is 'compact' (bounded), which clarifies the semantic role of the limit parameter beyond its schema description. However, the param-level value-add is modest since the schema is already complete, giving a 4 rather than 5.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Build a compact context bundle around a card') and clearly enumerates what it aggregates: direct relations, active conventions, open incidents, and active project context. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_get_record or project_search, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to prefer this tool: 'Prefer this over reading records one by one before working on a card.' This gives the agent a clear decision rule and differentiates from sibling tools that fetch single records or search. It explains the intended workflow context (working on a card) rather than just what the tool does.

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