get_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: it loads all sources by default, filters with a name, and auto-detects format. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the load operation implies read-only behavior and the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with no redundancy. It fronts the purpose, then gives usage timing, then parameter behavior, with each sentence earning its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it loads, when to call it, how to filter, and format auto-detection. It could define 'supplementary context' more precisely, but the output schema handles return structure.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'name' parameter, but the description compensates fully by explaining that no argument loads all sources and passing a name loads just one. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 tool loads supplementary context from contextSources, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on user-configured context sources rather than repository or release data.

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 instructs to call this tool first when assembling release notes, providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains parameter usage with no argument vs passing a name, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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