ContextBuilder (ctx)

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 behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and lists key components. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every element earns its place.

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's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool returns at a high level but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'app_key' fully documented in the schema (including its enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of different app keys. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'a high-level summary of app context state'. It lists specific components included (refresh status, available sections, graph stats), making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'ctx.get.provenance' or 'ctx.pull.context_slice'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools like 'ctx.get.provenance' or 'ctx.pull.context_slice'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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