request_context

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds detailed behavioral traits: retrieval is role-bound, tenant-bound, hash-verified, and ledgered. It also states that GIA decides what to serve, implying non-deterministic or filtered results. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral context significantly.

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 three sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second explains governance, third reinforces the principle. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundant phrases. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the governance and security aspects but does not indicate the return format (e.g., structure of retrieved context). For example, it doesn't specify whether multiple documents are returned or if there is pagination. This gap in output behavior, along with lack of differentiation from similar siblings like 'gia_retrieve', makes it only moderately 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level details beyond what is already in the input schema. While it mentions 'declare intent' which aligns with the 'query' and 'context_class' parameters, it does not elaborate on the meaning or interaction of parameters, thus staying at baseline.

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 requests governed internal context (policies, SOPs, architecture docs, compliance rules, playbooks). It uses a specific verb 'Request' and identifies the resource as 'governed internal context'. Sibling tools like 'gia_retrieve' or 'agent_rights' have different scopes, and this description distinguishes the tool as the one for requesting context under contract.

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 clear context on when to use: agents declare intent, GIA decides, and retrieval is role-bound and tenant-bound. It implies that agents should not directly access internal data but request it under contract. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, missing the strictest criteria for a 5.

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