context_get

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes error cases ('not_found', 'expired') and importantly reveals the side effect that an expired context is purged on read, which is valuable behavioral information.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds meaningful detail about behavior or error handling. 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, both error cases, and the TTL purge side effect. It does not explicitly describe the success return payload or the role of app_id, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'key' is the lookup key, but does not explain 'app_id', which is also required. This leaves a substantial gap in understanding the required inputs.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource ('saved context by key'), clearly distinguishing this retrieval tool from sibling operations like context_save, context_list, and context_expire.

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 phrase 'Read a saved context by key' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific stored context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as store_get or context_list, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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