get_context

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It accurately describes a read-only retrieval ('what the memory already knows') with no indication of side effects. However, it does not elaborate on auth or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately state purpose and usage. No redundant words or filler, every sentence contributes value.

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?

Six parameters are present, but the description covers the core purpose and usage scenario adequately. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. While some parameter behavior (e.g., depth effect) is omitted, the schema fills those gaps. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new insight beyond the schema, only hinting at the output ('related nodes and links') without detailing parameters like depth or format's injection use case.

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 defines the tool's function: retrieving related nodes and links for a given topic from memory. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('nodes and links'), and distinguishes from the sibling 'pre_turn' tool by noting that for normal start-of-turn loads, 'pre_turn' should be preferred.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to call this tool ('BEFORE answering when a question may have prior context') and when to use an alternative ('For the normal start-of-turn load, prefer pre_turn'). This helps the agent choose correctly.

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