context_explain

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output-facing behavior, namely showing matching lines and the highest-priority matching context source, which goes beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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 a single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional behavior attached cleanly. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only introspection tool with two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description conveys the main purpose and the query variant effectively. It does not explain what determines 'highest-priority' or the exact output shape, but the annotations and simple schema make the tool usable without that extra detail.

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 already documents both parameters fully with 100% coverage, including the path default and the optional literal query. The description restates the query behavior somewhat but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Explain where Pilot context came from' and clearly describes the optional query behavior. It is distinct enough for most selections, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like context_info, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Explain where Pilot context came from' gives an agent a clear reason to use this tool: when context provenance is needed. It also states the optional query branch, but it does not provide exclusions or point to alternatives, so usage guidance is clear but not fully elaborated.

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