get_product_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does useful work by declaring "Read-only" and warning that constraints come back empty when the product layer is off. However, it says nothing about permissions, response shape, or what a "governed surface" item looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a query tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the return content front-loaded, followed by the empty-result caveat and the usage trigger. Nothing is redundant and every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, the empty-state condition, and when to call it. The missing piece is any indication of response structure, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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% and the sole parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's "capability, surface or text scope" echoes the schema's "Capability reference, surface or free-text scope" without adding format, example, or resolution rules.

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?

States a specific verb ("Return") and a specific resource ("product constraints and governed surfaces ... plus project principles"), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like check_decisions or set_feature_context. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast against, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Use before building a feature to learn the product rules for it" gives an explicit trigger and timing, which is exactly the context an agent needs. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer check_decisions), so it falls short of a 5.

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