Recall Saved Context

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover key behavioral traits. The description adds context that it retrieves 'full details' but does not contradict annotations. It provides minimal additional transparency beyond what annotations convey, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action, the second provides usage context, and the third gives concrete examples. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and 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?

The tool is simple (retrieve by ID with two params) and has rich annotations. The description explains when to use it and gives examples, but could be more complete by describing the return structure (e.g., fields of the context). However, given no output schema, the description is adequate for a straightforward get 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains both parameters (id and response_format). The description adds a bit of context for 'id' (get from search/list) and mentions response_format implicitly via 'full details', but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'full details of a previously saved context by its ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_search_context by specifying it is used after finding a context via search or list, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool: after finding a context via search or list, with example user requests like 'show me that decision'. It implies the prerequisite of having an ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use it. This is clear and useful but could be more thorough.

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