get_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the default returns the README plus a file list or onboarding instructions for an empty repo, and a path returns the file or a starter template if missing. This significantly expands what the agent knows beyond the 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 three sentences long with no fluff, covering invocation modes, return behavior, empty-repo handling, and usage timing. The core 'always start here' guidance is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 fully documents both call patterns, their return contents, the empty-repository case, and team-specific guidance. Since there is no output schema, this description serves as the sole source of return-value documentation and is complete for a tool of this low complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% for the single optional 'path' parameter, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by stating that a non-existent path triggers a starter template, which the schema does not mention, and clarifies that omitting the argument yields the README and file list.

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 resource ('organizational context (Org Context Spec repo)'), and clearly documents both invocation modes (no args vs with a path). This makes it easy to distinguish from propose_context_change (write), search (query), and fetch (generic retrieval) without inspecting the schema.

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 gives explicit direction to 'Read the relevant context BEFORE writing code, stories, or product documents' and advises reading teams/<team>.md early when the team is known, giving clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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