Context Tier Status

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

The annotations already indicate readonly, nondestructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the output includes Hot/Domain/Cold tiers and token load savings. It does not contradict annotations (annotation_contradiction is false).

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all key outputs. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned: context tier assignments (Hot/Domain/Cold), token load estimates for current session vs universal loading, and savings percentage. This is complete for a status 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?

Schema coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema beyond mentioning 'active feature' which implies a default behavior. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage baseline is 3.

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 says 'Return the context tier assignment and token load estimates'. The verb is specific ('Return'), the resource is well-defined ('context tier assignment' and 'token load estimates'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on context management, which is unique among the many sdd_* tools.

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 the tool is for checking context tiers, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large number of siblings, more context (e.g., 'Use this to check the performance impact of context loading') would improve the score.

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