keystone_get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the composition of the envelope (rules, reasoning, skills, commands) but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or what the output structure looks like beyond those high-level components.

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 concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the key outcome. However, its brevity sacrifices important context that would improve usability, so it is not a perfect score.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description provides very little context for usage. It does not explain how to discover valid topics, what actions to take with the envelope, or how this fits into the broader workflow with the many sibling tools. The tool appears moderately complex given the rich output, but the description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has a single required 'topic' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'for a topic', which is minimal and somewhat redundant. It does not clarify topic naming, valid values, relationship to keystone_list_topics, or provide examples, leaving the parameter underdocumented.

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 returns a 'full envelope' containing rules, reasoning, skills, and commands for a given topic. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name and phrasing make the retrieval intent clear, and it distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like keystone_list_topics or the new_* creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the topic must already exist or if this should be called after creating resources.

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