get_full_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the behavioral note 'Call once at session start' but doesn't disclose potential large payload size, idempotency, or any performance costs. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning; no 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for selection and invocation. It states what is returned (complete context across all knowledge domains) and when to call it. Could enumerate domains, but sibling tool names provide that 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for no params is 4; description doesn't need to elaborate further.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' + resource 'complete ITGD Android project context' and scope 'all knowledge domains'. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools that target individual domains (e.g., get_project_structure, get_architecture_patterns).

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?

Explicitly says 'Call once at session start', providing a clear when-to-use. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tools imply specialization for focused lookups.

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