context_for_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a read-oriented operation ('Get'), produces Markdown, is budgeted, and involves refs that can be selectively expanded. However, it does not disclose side-effect constraints, permissions, or what happens when the budget is exceeded.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences, no filler, purpose first, and a targeted usage rule second. It is easy to parse and front-loads the essential 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to fully support invocation. It is adequate for selecting the tool, but it omits parameter semantics, output expectations, and important behavioral details needed for a reliable call.

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%, and the description adds very little parameter-level meaning. It only hints at 'focusRefs' via 'selected refs' and 'maxChars' via 'budgeted.' It does not explain locale, projectRoot, includeStructured, or how the parameters interact.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get a budgeted Markdown context pack for the current development task.' It adds a useful lifecycle cue with 'Use at task start.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like plan_context, but the task-focused scope and 'expand only selected refs' make the purpose understandable.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('Use at task start') and a specific usage constraint ('expand only selected refs'). This is clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools or conditions when the tool should not be used.

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