get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions ranking by relevance and token budget, but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, and what happens with conflicting parameters (e.g., id plus tags). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a retrieval tool with 10 parameters.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant information, and a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, how relevance is determined, or how the token budget affects results. For a complex retrieval tool, more contextual detail is needed to avoid misuse.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the special behavior of the 'id' parameter (single entry at full fidelity), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., how tags and query combine), so the added semantics is moderate.

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 retrieves project context ranked by relevance within a token budget. It distinguishes fetching by id for full fidelity vs other parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_entries or get_project_summary, so clarity is high but not perfect.

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 guidance on using the 'id' parameter for a single entry, which helps the agent decide between id-based and query-based usage. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to alternative tools (e.g., when to use get_context vs query_entries) and does not state prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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