Get Context Suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the output categories and parameters but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or performance implications. The description is adequate but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a concise first sentence, bulleted output categories, usage guidance, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter details. While it lacks an output schema, it explains what the tool surfaces. It is largely complete but could benefit from mentioning the return format or data structure for clarity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear, contextual explanations for all four parameters, including default values for days_back and limit and prefix matching for persona. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds significant meaning.

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 provides proactive context suggestions from session history, listing specific categories like unresolved questions and skill gaps. It uses the verb 'Get' and resource 'context suggestions', but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_context_for or get_related_sessions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicitly advises using the tool at the start of a session or when unsure what to work on next. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for specific needs, such as searching for individual sessions.

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