Get Planning Context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does establish that this is a read operation and lists the categories of data returned, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits permission/scope requirements, output format (IDs vs summaries), sizing or truncation behavior, and whether the aggregate call is expensive relative to the narrow getters.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope ('org-wide') and the contents front-loaded before the optional narrowing clause. Slightly dense enumeration rather than a fuller explanation of behavior, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description does the minimum viable job by naming what comes back and noting the optional repo focus. Missing is anything on response shape, how the target repo alters the payload (the schema mentions CLAUDE.md, which the description does not), and cost or filtering behavior.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented with format and intent, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only that the repo focus is optional and that it narrows the context set, which mildly reinforces but does not extend 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 definition uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a named resource ('org-wide planning context') and enumerates the payload: connected repos with summaries, cross-repo dependencies, ADRs, and active specs. That makes the aggregate nature clear enough to separate it from single-artifact readers like get_docs or get_specs, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing against the many adjacent get_* tools (get_context, get_specs, get_plan_board, get_project_rules). A reader can infer this is a planning-time aggregate read, but nothing states whether to call it first, when to prefer the narrower tools, or what 'active specs' means in terms of scope.

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