Get Continuity Object

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds 'Effect: read' and 'Human approval: not required for this read or staging action', plus detailed on-failure behaviors that clarify expected side effects and next steps. No contradiction with annotations.

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 lengthy but well-structured with sections for use cases, requirements, effects, approval, and error handling. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'read' in multiple forms). Overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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 presence of an output schema, the description focuses on preconditions, effects, and error handling, which are fully covered. It addresses authentication, project selection, human approval, and failure scenarios, making it complete for a read tool without needing to explain return values.

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 description coverage is 50% (only projectId has a description). itemId lacks description, and the tool description does not explain what itemId refers to or how to obtain it. While the context is clear from the overall description, parameter semantics are not fully detailed beyond the schema.

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 verb 'read' and the specific resources: 'built-in Decision, Principle, Assumption, Open Question, or Next Action identity plus immutable revision history in the selected project.' This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_page or get_continuity_operations.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:' conditions, including guidance to look for a narrower tool if applicable. Also details when human approval is not required and provides structured error handling steps with recommended follow-ups.

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