team_wake_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; 'Read' plus a list of returned sections does establish this as a safe retrieval of pre-scoped content. However, it omits what happens if neither parameter is supplied, whether both may be supplied, and whether the packet is truncated or paginated — all things an agent needs before calling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, structured as resource → scope → payload → follow-up. Nothing can be cut without losing information.

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 two-optional-parameter read with no output schema, the description does enumerate the returned sections, which is the main thing it must supply. But the undefined domain vocabulary and the unresolved question of parameter selection leave it only adequate rather than 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 both parameters are already documented as ids 'from your wake line'. The phrase 'for one directed Act or owned Lane' adds a useful hint that act_id and lane_id are alternatives rather than a conjunction, but it is left implicit rather than stated outright.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('wake context packet') plus its four contents: waking thread, other open work, lane, and memory. It also scopes it to 'one directed Act or owned Lane', which distinguishes it from lane_board or team_memory_read, though the domain jargon ('Act', 'Lane', 'wake line') is never defined.

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?

It implies this is the first thing an agent reads on waking ('your wake context packet'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance despite ~30 siblings that overlap conceptually (team_next, lane_board, team_memory_read). The trailing 'Fetch more only for what fetch lists' is circular and points at no named tool.

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