pre_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'active context summary and knowledge for the given topic' and is nondestructive in nature (loading context), but it does not explicitly declare side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth for a context loader.

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 the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and usage timing. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating what it does, explaining equivalence, and describing return value. 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description states it returns 'active context summary and knowledge,' which gives a reasonable idea of the output. Parameters are fully covered. Combined with clear usage guidance, the description is nearly complete for a simple context loader, though it could detail the return format more.

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 documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'topic' is described as 'Current topic or question,' which slightly clarifies the schema description. The other parameters are not elaborated beyond the schema, so the description adds marginal value.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Call at the START of each turn to load context in one shot.' It specifies the verb (call/load), resource (context), and timing (start of turn), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is equivalent to combining status and get_context, thus differentiating from those individual 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call at the START of each turn' and 'Ideal for providers without automatic injection hooks.' It also implies an alternative by stating equivalence to status + get_context, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it. The guidance is clear and contextually helpful.

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