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. It mentions 'refresh and rebuild' and 'force full rebuild', implying a mutation operation that could be resource-intensive or have side effects, but it fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, potential data loss, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key steps without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the operation and its components, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a tool that rebuilds app context state and graphs, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial details like what 'structured content' entails, how the graph is built, error handling, or the return value. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and outcomes.

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 all parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the implications of 'force' or 'idempotency_key' in the context of refreshing app sources. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 action ('Refresh and rebuild') and the target ('app context state + graph for a given app'), with specific details about fetching web sources and building a graph. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ctx.get.app_state_summary' or 'ctx.pull.context_slice', which might involve similar app context operations, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

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 lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the app must be pre-configured, or exclusions, like when to use 'ctx.get.app_state_summary' for read-only checks instead. This absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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