read_context

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-mutating read behavior and the permission model ('unrestricted for every agent'). It does not mention edge cases like missing family_id, or what exactly 'context includes, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, with the core function front-loaded and the permission note in a second short sentence. Every word earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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 tool's low complexity, one parameter and existing output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The output schema covers return values, so those are not needed in the description. However, it leaves unclear what constitutes 'all current family context and how the agent should obtain the family_id, making the overall description thinner than ideal.

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% for the only parameter, family_id. The description says 'family context' implies family_id is relevant, but provides no additional meaning about what the parameter represents, its source, or expected format. The name alone carries nearly all interpretation, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'all current family context,' clearly identifying the operation. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from mutating siblings like create_family or start_slice. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other read-like tools such as status or graph, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 statement that reading is unrestricted gives a clear condition for when the tool can be called by any agent, which is useful context. However, it does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving when-to-use guidance mostly implied rather than explicit.

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