ContextBuilder (ctx)

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 mentions the tool 'returns' specific content (product overview, etc.), which hints at a read-like operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (pushing data) or a query, nor does it address permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'push' suggests an action that might affect state, but this isn't elaborated, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core action and return values in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place by specifying what is pushed and what is returned, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from outputs, but it remains clear and concise.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and outputs but lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and parameter significance. Without annotations or output schema, more information on side effects or return format would be beneficial, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that involves 'pushing' context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('app_key' with enum values and 'target_agent_ids'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the significance of the 'app_key' choices or how 'target_agent_ids' are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Push a compact starter context bundle for an app' with specific outputs (product overview, key concepts, constraints, navigation map). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ctx.get.app_state_summary' (which retrieves state) and 'ctx.pull.context_slice' (which pulls slices) by emphasizing pushing a starter bundle. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'ctx.refresh.app_sources'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when this starter context is needed (e.g., initial setup, onboarding) or when other tools like 'ctx.get.app_state_summary' or 'ctx.pull.context_slice' might be more appropriate. Usage is implied by the action 'push' but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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