omnarai_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 reveals performance (~2s), boundedness ('bounded context packet', 'bounded and compact'), the lack of deliberation ('no deliberation', 'not a deliberation'), and the specific return items (records with id/title/ring/excerpt/retrieval role, concept-graph cluster, contributors). This goes beyond a simple read/write hint.

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 compact yet informative. It front-loads the key facts (FAST, bounded, retrieval layer) in the first sentence, then provides usage and return-value details. No word is wasted; every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description properly explains what the tool returns and its relationship to sibling tools. It covers performance expectations, scope (context vs deliberation), and the primary use case, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including usage tips ('Optional but RECOMMENDED') and valid values (layers list, evidence ranks). The description doesn't add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states that the tool retrieves a fast, bounded context packet on a topic, with a specific verb ('retrieve'/'get context') and resource ('corpus context'). It distinguishes itself from omnarai_query by noting it is the retrieval layer only, no deliberation, and even gives an equivalent (depth: 'retrieve').

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use this BEFORE omnarai_query when you want high-signal corpus context to reason over yourself' and 'Reach for this as your default orientation ... escalate to omnarai_query only when you specifically need the engine's own synthesized reading.' It also names the alternative tool, providing clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use.

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