work_context_fault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the intended action and source, and does not reveal whether the operation mutates context, requires recovery_handle semantics, or produces a response beyond the omitted code.

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 one sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, though the unusual phrasing makes it less clear than it could be.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, empty annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this sentence is grossly incomplete. It does not define recovery_handle, token_budget, or when the operation should be invoked, so an agent cannot safely select or call it.

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 there are 8 parameters. The phrase 'context token or verified context object' gives a slight hint about context/context_ref, but required recovery_handle and optional token_budget, project, agent_id, session_id, and workstream_id remain unexplained.

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 text names a resource ('exact omitted code') and a source ('context token or verified context object'), but the verb 'Fault' is nonstandard and ambiguous. It is not tautological, yet it does not clearly distinguish this from sibling recovery/omission tools such as recover_receipt_omission or explain_context.

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 implies use when context has omitted code, but gives no conditions, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives. An agent cannot tell when to choose work_context_fault over recover_receipt_omission or explain_context.

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