okf_context_tool

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions a conditional ('when available') but does not explain what happens when the additive indexed package is unavailable, whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or what side effects may occur. This is far too little disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence and starts with the action, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified: the sentence is concise but does not convey enough useful information to warrant giving it a higher score.

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 annotations, no output schema, four undocumented optional parameters, and a large sibling set, the description is nowhere near complete. An agent cannot reliably decide when to invoke this tool, what inputs to provide, or what the response will contain.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of depth, start, bundle, or max_tokens. The phrase 'additive indexed package' might loosely relate to bundle, but it is not explicit or sufficient. The agent cannot determine parameter meaning, constraints, or how the parameters interact.

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 the verb 'assemble' and identifies resources ('legacy graph context', 'additive indexed package'), so it is more than a pure tautology. However, it is vague about what the tool actually returns or does, and 'context' closely mirrors the tool name without explaining the operation's effect. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like okf_related_tool or search_chunks.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The description names no conditions, alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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