get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavior: returns context applied to the current repo and falls back to a global value in roots-unsupported environments. The return verb implies read-only nature, though explicit permission or error details are missing.

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?

Two compact Korean sentences: the first states the primary function, the second adds both a concrete use case and the fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose, use case, and fallback scenario. It does not mention possible errors or authentication requirements, but these are less critical for a simple read-only getter.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific detail, which is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb '반환한다' (returns) and specifies the resource: workspace/project context for the current repo. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_context (which sets) and list_workspaces (which lists all available workspaces).

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?

Description states a clear use case: 'create_task/list 등에서 어떤 프로젝트가 쓰일지 확인하는 용도' (used to check which project will be used in create_task/list). This provides context on when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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