ocd_get_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the includeContent default and cwd usage for config discovery, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or potential side effects. As a 'get' tool, read-only is implied, but lacking explicit disclosure and output details limits transparency.

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 well-organized with a brief intro, parameter list, and jq filter examples. It is moderately sized and front-loaded, though some content (the jq examples) is example-oriented and could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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 should explain what the tool returns, but it does not describe the response structure or content. It covers parameter usage thoroughly but omits return value semantics, leaving agents uncertain about what to expect when calling the 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for patterns (['project/**', 'docs/*']) and filter ('.attrs.status == "draft"') and clarifying the default for includeContent. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 'パターンとフィルタでコンテキストを取得します' (retrieves contexts with patterns and filters), which clearly identifies the operation as a retrieval using specific mechanisms. This distinguishes it from siblings like ocd_get_context_tree (tree retrieval) and ocd_search_contexts (search), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 description implies usage through examples of patterns and filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the description and tool name.

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