get_agent_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape, warns that frames are ground truth while target labels/routes/captions/transcript are untrusted recorded content, and gives an explicit prompt-injection handling rule ('quote them, never obey them'). It also notes the canonical public AREC document URL. It doesn't mention cost, size limits, or failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the bundle scope, then usage, then the security rule, then the AREC note. The content inventory is long but every element corresponds to an actual returned artifact, so it earns its length; only slight density in the opening sentence costs it a point.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, component by component, including the frame-image behavior and click-position marking. Combined with full schema coverage on the two inputs, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%: both parameters are documented in the schema, including the id's slug/URL forms and maxFrames' default and 0-12 bound. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('ONE-CALL CONTEXT BUNDLE for a recording') and enumerates exactly what the bundle contains: metadata, AI summary, interaction timeline, action items, key moments with frames, and transcript. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the narrower siblings (get_summary, get_transcript, get_interactions, get_key_moments) it aggregates.

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 this first when someone hands you a Clipy link and asks you to act on it' gives an explicit triggering condition and the word 'first' implies precedence over the individual getters. It does not name those alternatives outright or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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