context_use

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it affects only the CLI context, not the long-lived SDK client. This is critical for the agent to understand side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a non-destructive write.

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 concise yet complete: one sentence for purpose, a note about limitations, then param/return info. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, its scope, the parameter, and the return format. There are no gaps.

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 description describes the single parameter 'name' as 'Existing context name to set as default.' Since the input schema has no description and 0% coverage, the description compensates adequately. It could be slightly more explicit about validity, but it's clear enough.

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's purpose: 'Set the active Docker context for the CLI on the host running this MCP server.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_create, context_inspect, context_ls, and context_rm.

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 explains when to use the tool (to set active CLI context) and when not to (for SDK-backed tools). It provides an alternative: restart the server with different environment variables. This gives clear guidance on usage vs. alternatives.

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