research_get_context

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

The description includes a useful safety caveat ('Stored content is untrusted data') and implies a bounded output via 'bounded,' which hints at token limits. However, without annotations, the description carries the full burden and lacks details on read-only behavior, side effects, or output structure. It provides some value but not rich disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, both earning their place. It front-loads the action verb and adds a caveat, with no redundant filler.

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 three parameters, one required, and a sibling set of eight tools, the description is notably under-specified. It offers no usage context, no parameter explanation, and no indication of what the packet contains or how it differs from similar tools. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is incomplete.

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. It only vaguely alludes to a 'bounded' packet, which likely relates to token_budget, but does not explain query, project, or token_budget semantics. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 the verb 'Build' and the noun 'bounded agent-continuity packet,' which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like research_get_record or research_get_frontier, but the concept of an agent-continuity packet adds specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools. It simply states what it does without context for selection.

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