retrieve_agent_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves relevant context and bootstraps the project automatically on first use. It does not discuss permissions, side effects, or limitations, but the core behavior is clear.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and adds no superfluous information.

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 relative simplicity (retrieval with four parameters), the description covers the purpose and high-level behavior but fails to detail parameter semantics. The lack of output schema and annotations means the description must compensate, but it does not fully achieve this.

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 description provides no explanation of any of the four parameters (task, token_budget, current_files, current_symbols). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are insufficient for correct usage. This is a critical gap.

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 that the tool retrieves the smallest relevant set of persistent memory and project knowledge before non-trivial coding work, and bootstraps the project on first use. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_knowledge and inspect_memory, which are likely more targeted.

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 recommends using this tool 'before non-trivial coding work,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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