context_use

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: it does not retarget the long-lived docker-py client, so SDK-backed tools retain their startup endpoint. This is critical for an agent to understand the tool's real impact. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a mutation that is not destructive, and the description adds important context.

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 and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, includes a critical caveat, and then provides args/returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The format is easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the limitation, parameter semantics, and return format. It also cross-references related tools. No essential information is missing for an agent to select and use this tool correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the single parameter: 'name - Existing context name to set as default.' This conveys both the parameter's purpose and a constraint (it must exist), which is sufficient for a simple string parameter.

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 specifies a verb (set), resource (active Docker context), and scope (CLI on host), distinguishing it from related context management tools like context_create and context_list, which are explicitly referenced.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes that SDK-backed tools are not retargeted and suggests restarting with DOCKER_HOST/DOCKER_CONTEXT instead. It also points to context_create for creation and context_list for listing, giving clear alternatives.

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