sparda_get_context

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It lists the exact contents (tools, workflows, telemetry, quarantined tools, immune memory), implying a read-only, safe operation. It does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of side effects, but the detail compensates.

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 two sentences: an imperative command followed by a concise list of what is returned. Every word is purposeful, no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a detailed list of return contents. It enables the agent to understand the tool's purpose and output, though it could specify the format or structure.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional value is required.

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 it returns the 'full living context' of the app, listing specific components. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-tool that provides an overview before using other tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this FIRST,' providing clear usage guidance. It implies this tool should be used at the start of a session for context, but does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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