get_smart_context

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

The description explicitly states authentication requirements (COSENSE_SID) and the default project behavior. It also discloses that the tool returns full content and uses AI-optimized formatting. While it does not explicitly state read-only or side effects, the nature of 'get context' is clearly a read operation, and no annotations exist to carry that burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting anything.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, the return value, the use case, authentication, and a default behavior in four sentences with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 is relatively complex (returns target page and linked pages with full contents) and has no output schema, but the description covers the key points: what is returned (page + linked pages, hop counts), the format (AI-optimized), the required auth, and the default project. This is sufficient for an agent to call it appropriately.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters. The description repeats the default projectName behavior and mentions hop counts but adds no additional detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters, though the description could have clarified the return format structure slightly more.

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 action: 'Get smart context for a page' on cosense. It specifies the resource (page) and the scope (linked pages 1-hop or 2-hop) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page or search_pages by emphasizing the AI-optimized format and related-knowledge context.

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?

It indicates this tool is useful for understanding context and related knowledge around a topic, which gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_page, but the context is clear enough and no misleading guidance.

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