retrieve_context

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: budget-honest, output is data not instructions, and reliance on assumptions gate. It adds value beyond the tool name and schema.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds behavioral context, though a more structured format could improve readability.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain return values and all parameters. It only describes the output abstractly and omits details about the context pack structure and parameter purposes.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain most parameters (paths, budgets). It only hints at budget-honest behavior without detailing 'budget_items' or 'budget_tokens'. Parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 identifies 'retrieve_context' as 'the primary read path' for obtaining context, using specific verbs and resource references. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record_memory' (write) and 'search_memory' (alternative read mode).

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 usage as the default read tool for tasks but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. The mention of ARCHITECTURE.md §5.4 provides a subtle direction but is not directly actionable.

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