Note Context

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that this tool aggregates multiple lookups into one response and explicitly lists the categories of information returned, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then the relationship to siblings, then the concrete return contents. There is minor redundancy between "Replaces separate calls..." and "Use this instead of making 4-5 separate tool calls...," but the information density is high and each sentence adds relevant detail.

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 is complete for an agent's decision-making: it states what the tool returns, when to use it instead of alternatives, and the exact scope of the 'context' it provides. The input schema and output schema cover parameter details and return structure, so nothing essential is missing.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation of 3 when the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 and resource: it "gets a consolidated context dossier for a document" and then enumerates exactly what that dossier contains (metadata, backlinks, outlinks, similar notes, same-folder notes, frontmatter tags). It also names the sibling tools it replaces, so an agent can distinguish it from get_backlinks, get_outlinks, and get_similar without opening their schemas.

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 guidance: use get_context instead of making 4-5 separate calls when you need a full picture, and use it instead of get_backlinks, get_outlinks, and get_similar when more than one is needed. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over its siblings and when the consolidated call is appropriate.

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