memcp_get_context

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or permissions. The word 'Read' implies idempotency, but no further detail is given about behavior when the context does not exist or when line ranges are invalid.

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 brief and to the point, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter descriptions. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into the main sentence, and it does not use formatting to highlight key constraints.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the input semantics well but omits return value explanation and error scenarios. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return details, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 description explains all three parameters (name, start, end) with semantic details like indexing (1-indexed) and default behavior (0=from beginning/to end). Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('stored context's content or a line range'). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memcp_inspect_context or memcp_load_context, relying on the agent to infer distinctions from context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer use cases from the operation name and parameters.

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