get_session_context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: recent_decisions ranking by "recency x outcome-confidence," hidden reverted/outdated decisions, a needs_review flag with review_hint values, and cross-tool support. This materially shapes how an agent interprets the response and what follow-up actions may be needed.

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 front-loads the core purpose in its first sentence and then elaborates on ranking, filtering, and review semantics that directly affect how the output should be used. It is somewhat dense with examples like the "decision git watched survive" parenthetical, but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does so thoroughly: roadmap phase, decisions with confidence, preferences, active rules, ranking logic, hidden entries, and review hints. Combined with zero parameters and safe read annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema reflects that with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a specific framing, "Single 'catch me up' call for cross-tool continuity," and then lists the concrete resources it returns: current roadmap phase, recent decisions, learned preferences, and active rules. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like list_decisions or get_roadmap by describing it as the all-in-one session-restore call.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: "Call this at the START of every session instead of multiple separate calls." This tells the agent both when to invoke it and that it should be preferred over assembling the same information through multiple sibling calls, which is strong usage guidance.

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