Read Orchestrator context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable failure-handling behavior ('say CONTEXT_UNREAD or UNTETHERED instead of guessing'), which is real behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe the shape of returned continuity.

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, front-loaded with purpose then sequencing then failure handling. Dense jargon ('seat', 'gate') is context-specific but 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 read-only, zero-required-param tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, timing, and failure modes. With no output schema, it could say more about what 'continuity' actually returns, but it is largely complete.

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%, so all five optional parameters are self-documented. The description adds no param-level guidance (e.g., when to use q or include_raw), so this sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('current UnClick Orchestrator continuity') and explicitly positions it relative to save_conversation_turn, so an agent can distinguish it from memory/search siblings.

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 'Use immediately after save_conversation_turn' and describes the required Log -> Read -> Decide -> Reply -> Log reply gate. This names the trigger condition and sequencing, leaving nothing to inference.

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