get_agent_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the output contents including inline images with click positions and crops, and warns that transcript is untrusted. It lacks mention of authentication needs or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only retrieval tool. The description is transparent about what the tool returns and how to interpret the data.

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 relatively long but every sentence provides useful information. It is well-structured, starting with a bold purpose, then listing contents, usage guidance, and a note about a similar public document. It could be slightly more compact, but it earns its length.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key return elements adequately. It mentions metadata, summary, action items, key moments with images, and transcript. It does not mention pagination or response size limits, but for a context bundle tool, the description is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value by specifying that 'id' accepts either a slug or full URL, and that 'maxFrames' defaults to 6 (a detail not present in the schema). This enhances the schema's information.

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 defines the tool as a 'ONE-CALL CONTEXT BUNDLE for a recording' and enumerates all included elements: metadata, AI summary, action items, key moments with inline images, and transcript. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its bundled nature.

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 states 'Use this first when someone hands you a Clipy link and asks you to act on it.' It also provides workflow guidance about trusting frames over transcript. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling alternatives like get_transcript or get_summary, which would strengthen the guidelines.

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