Bootstrap personal context

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral nuance about how output scope changes based on project_hint and route_hint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no unnecessary words. 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?

Given the simple read-only tool with strong annotations and a small parameter set, the description covers essential usage logic. It could mention return format or when to prefer context_query, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description explains the semantics of project_hint and route_hint, which is helpful. However, max_chars and task are not addressed, though task is self-explanatory and max_chars has schema constraints.

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 current personal context for a task with a specific verb and resource. It references project and route hints, which hints at differentiation, but doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like context_query.

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?

Provides clear conditional guidance: omit project_hint for common identity and rules, use route_hint for multiple task-specific routes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is well implied.

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