get_task_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals what the returned packet contains and that it should precede planning, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions/inputs beyond the obvious are needed. Some transparency is present, but the safety profile is left implicit.

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 a single compact sentence with a colon-delimited list of contents followed by a direct, imperative usage rule. It is front-loaded, scannable, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers the main high-level contents and invocation timing well. It is slightly incomplete in that it omits guidance on optional scoping parameters and sibling-tool differentiation, but it is adequate for a task-context retrieval tool.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. The field names (task, paths, project, repository, incident_id) are partially self-explanatory, and 'task-specific' aligns with the required 'task' parameter, but the description does not clarify how optional parameters interact, which combinations are valid, or what values are expected. In a low-coverage situation, the description should compensate and does not.

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 identifies a specific resource—a task-specific packet—and enumerates its contents (architecture, business rules, gotchas, code pointers, risks, verification steps), which makes the tool's purpose fairly clear. It stops short of a strong action verb like 'retrieve' or 'build', but the intent is unambiguous and distinct from broader sibling tools like get_project_overview.

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 explicit 'Call BEFORE planning' gives clear temporal guidance, telling an agent when in the workflow this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the timing guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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