context_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'share', which is ambiguous: does it copy or move context? What happens when the target already has context? Does omitting 'keys' share everything? None of these are addressed. The schema partially helps, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 a single, economical sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. While it could be more informative, it remains highly concise.

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 tool that transfers context between sessions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., sharing all keys when 'keys' is omitted), side effects (copy vs. move), or return values. The schema mitigates some gaps, but the overall description is inadequate for an agent to fully predict tool behavior.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including clear descriptions for optional keys, target session, and source session. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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 states the action ('share') and the resource ('context') with directional scope ('from one session to another'). This distinguishes it from sibling context tools like context_set or context_get, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It misses the optional 'keys' detail, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like context_set or memory_write. There are no exclusions, conditions, or references to sibling tools. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer applicability without support.

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