get_context

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose and timing but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and the lack of output specification leaves significant 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that state purpose and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured if it mentioned parameters.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how parameters affect results. It only says it retrieves relevant experience and skills, but not the format or how top_k limits the response. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool and interpret the output.

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 only 50% (only task_description has a description; top_k has none but a default). The description does not mention any parameters, not even task_description or top_k. It fails to explain how top_k controls the number of results, so the description adds no value 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 a specific verb and resource: 'retrieve relevant historical experience and skills' based on task description, and adds a usage timing ('call before starting a new task'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_skill (which searches only skills) by covering both experiences and skills.

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 says when to use it ('before starting a new task'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it does not fully guide an agent on when not to use it versus siblings like search_skill.

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