context_pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a hard byte budget with default, lexical-by-default retrieval, backlink/outlink expansion, and the important failure semantics (empty excerpts with confidence 'none'/'low' means no vault coverage; with folder/tag set, 'none' can mean the filter excluded everything, distinguishable via totalMatches). That is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Content is front-loaded — the core purpose leads, routing guidance follows, and failure semantics come last. The sentences are long and information-dense, bordering on run-on, but nearly every clause carries distinct operational value rather than repetition.

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 return-value burden and discharges it, describing the shape of results and the confidence/totalMatches signals that disambiguate empty responses. For a read-only, five-parameter retrieval tool this is complete enough to call correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains the motivation for choosing hybrid/semantic mode and clarifies that folder/tag scoping works 'exactly as in search'. It does not, however, add syntax or precedence detail for budgetBytes or folder beyond what the schema states.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Assemble everything needed to ANSWER a natural-language question in one call') and enumerates the concrete outputs (ranked excerpts, neighbor notes with summaries, follow-up source paths). It is immediately distinguishable from search and query_notes, which are named explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit routing: 'Use search to locate notes and query_notes for metadata filters; use context_pack when you want answer-ready context without multiple round-trips.' It also tells the agent when to switch modes ('for a question phrased in words the note itself may not use, pass mode hybrid or semantic'), covering both when-to-use and when-to-use-an-alternative.

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