get_smart_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auth requirements (COSENSE_MCP_PAT or COSENSE_SID), the default project fallback, the hop-depth behavior, and that 2-hop yields a larger response. It does not, however, mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior on a missing page.

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?

Four sentences, purpose leading, each carrying distinct information (scope, use case, auth, default project). The final sentence partially duplicates the schema's projectName default, a minor redundancy, but overall the text 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return ('full content in AI-optimized format'), so an agent understands what it receives. Auth prerequisites and the default project are covered; only edge-case behavior (missing page, response size limits) is absent.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the hopCount enum semantics and the projectName default. The description restates the default project and hop behavior without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get context for a page) and clarifies scope: returns the target page plus its linked pages at 1- or 2-hop depth. This implies differentiation from the single-page sibling get_page, but it never names or contrasts siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear use context: 'Useful for understanding the context and related knowledge around a specific topic.' However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names the alternative (e.g., use get_page for a single page's content), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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