get_context

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return shape ('meta + all subtopics' for entity refs) which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens for invalid refs, error behavior, or whether this is a safe/read-only operation — though 'read' implies non-mutation. Lacks depth but not contradictory.

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?

Description is compact (two short paragraphs) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, ref types, examples, and return behavior. Slightly repetitive between 'Read the current context' and the ref explanation, but overall efficient.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values aren't the description's job. For a 1-param read tool, the description covers purpose, ref formats, and per-ref-type behavior. Could mention error handling or default behavior for empty/invalid refs, but for a simple read tool this is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the ref format with concrete examples ('component:api-gateway' and 'component:api-gateway/auth'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail the format rules of refs (required structure, valid prefixes) beyond two examples. With only 1 required parameter and 0% coverage, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read the current context for an entity or a single subtopic.' Distinguishes ref types (entity vs subtopic) and states what's returned for each. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_config, though the read-context purpose is clear enough.

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 explains when to use it (reading context for entity/subtopic) and shows ref format examples. But it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when to use search vs get_context, or upsert_context for writing). The ref types are explained but no exclusions are given.

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