Get Workspace Context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the auto-discovery mechanism (walking up from cwd), the RUNWHEN_CONTEXT_FILE override, and caching behavior (reinforced by the reload param). It does not state what happens if the file is absent or what errors look like, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered detail on the source file, discovery, override, and a bolded usage directive. Every sentence contributes, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given the simple input and rich output contract, the description covers purpose, mechanism, override, and invocation timing completely enough to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'reload' parameter, so the schema already explains the cache-busting behavior. The description adds discovery/override context but nothing new about the parameter itself, which is the expected baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get domain-specific context') and immediately names the concrete source: the project's RUNWHEN.md file with infrastructure conventions, DB rules, and naming patterns. This is clearly distinguishable from the many assistant/skill/chat-rule siblings, none of which read a project context file.

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 closing line gives explicit, actionable timing: 'Call this BEFORE writing any task or script to understand the target environment's rules.' That removes ambiguity about when to invoke. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it is not a 5.

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