context_for_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that output is Markdown, budgeted, and that refs should be expanded selectively, but it does not describe output shape, budget semantics, or any side effects or prerequisites.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no repetition or filler. The first sentence delivers the core operation and the second adds a targeted usage rule; every word earns 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?

Eight parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema make this description insufficient for reliable invocation. It provides a starting point and usage stage, but leaves most parameter decisions and behavioral expectations unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at semantics through 'budgeted' and 'selected refs' and never explains required 'task', focusRefs, budgetChars, projectRoot, locale, or includeStructured.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Get'), a concrete deliverable ('budgeted Markdown context pack'), and a scope ('current development task'), so a model can tell what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like project_map or plan_context, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use at task start' gives an explicit temporal trigger, and 'expand only selected refs' is a concrete usage instruction. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools should be preferred.

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