get_context_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Get a summary' suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it disclose any side effects, error conditions, or requirements like needing an initialized context. This is a significant gap for a read tool.

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 directly names the action and the key output components. No unnecessary words or repetition; it efficiently conveys the tool's essence.

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?

The description lists the exact output categories (total items, completed vs active counts, projects, tags), which is useful since there is no output schema. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., missing path, uninitialized context) but is otherwise complete for a simple, one-parameter tool.

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 description covers the only parameter 'path' with 'Path to the context directory', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a summary of the context' and enumerates specific elements (total items, completed vs active counts, projects, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, add, or modify items, so the agent can easily select it for status overviews.

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 implies usage when a summary is needed (for counts and tags), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_context_items or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is clear context but no explicit guidance or alternatives.

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