context_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the strict byte budget, the return structure (ranked excerpts, neighbor notes with summaries, source paths), and the confidence semantics for empty results. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'assemble' and 'answer-ready context'.

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 well-structured sentences. The first fronts the purpose and components, the second gives alternative usage and a caution. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (ranked excerpts, linked notes, source paths) and how to interpret confidence levels. It also covers the byte budget and vault coverage implications, making it self-contained for the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces that the byte budget is strict and the default is 2048, already stated in the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool assembles answer-ready context for a natural-language question, listing specific components (ranked excerpts, linked neighbor notes, follow-up source paths). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with search and query_notes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use search for locating notes, query_notes for metadata filters, and context_pack when you want answer-ready context without multiple round-trips. Also gives interpretation guidance for empty excerpts with low confidence.

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