context_inspect

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive intent. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it raises RemoteFailureError on CLI failure and returns a parsed dict of the 'docker context inspect' entry, including the daemon URL. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, differentiation, error behavior, argument meaning, and return shape are each covered in a few short lines. There is minimal redundancy and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies all needed context: what the tool returns, key fields in the result, how to obtain the argument value, and what exception may occur. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'name' is the context name and explicitly directs the agent to reuse the 'Name' field from 'context_list'. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete and actionable semantic guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full configuration for a single Docker context.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling 'context_list' by contrasting full endpoint/TLS detail with a one-line summary, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 clearly situates this tool as the detailed counterpart to 'context_list' and instructs the agent to source the 'name' argument from the 'Name' field of 'context_list'. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage context is clear.

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