context_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds details on parameter behavior (e.g., 'must not already exist' for name, 'for testing only' for skip_tls_verify). However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond creation, such as whether the context is automatically set as current, or whether it modifies system files. Given the annotations cover safety profile, the description provides moderate extra value.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to inlining all parameter descriptions. It could be more concise by grouping optional TLS parameters or mentioning defaults more efficiently. The structure is clear but not maximally efficient.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers all parameters with relevant guidance and provides the return format. It addresses the complexity of creating a Docker context (e.g., TLS options). However, it lacks information about error conditions or validation (e.g., what happens if docker_host is malformed). For a tool at this complexity level, the description is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides brief but clear explanations for each parameter, including examples for docker_host and usage hints (e.g., 'for TLS daemons' for tls_* params, 'insecure; for testing only' for skip_tls_verify). It also clarifies that name must be new. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though some parameters like description are merely restated from the schema name.

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 creates a new Docker CLI context pointing at a daemon endpoint. It also lists all the parameters inline, making the tool's purpose and scope very specific. The sibling tools include context-related commands like context_inspect, context_ls, context_rm, context_use, which are distinct from creation, so the description effectively distinguishes this tool from 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 implies usage when you need to create a new Docker context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that contexts can be created from existing endpoints or that using context_use might be needed after creation. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon must be running) or when not to use (e.g., if a context with the same name exists). The parameter descriptions help, but explicit usage guidelines are missing.

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