slimctx_retrieve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning 'byte-exact' content, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe error handling or what happens for invalid refs, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function. It is concise and free of extraneous content, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the return value (the original content) and the input context. It does not mention edge cases like expired refs or session limitations, but given the low complexity, these are acceptable omissions.

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 already covers the single parameter 'ref' with a clear description ('24-char hex ref from a marker'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no significant semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Recover' and names the exact resource ('byte-exact original content for a [slimctx-ref <ref>] marker'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slimctx_compress (which produces markers) and slimctx_stats (which provides statistics).

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 phrase 'seen in previously compressed output' provides clear context for when the tool should be used. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough for a focused retrieval tool.

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