get_context_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation through 'list', but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, the scope (current tree vs entire app), or any side effects. It also omits the optional filtering behavior from the contextName parameter.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite a simple interface with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description only covers the basic listing action. It does not mention the contextName filter, return value structure, or how it relates to similar inspection tools, leaving notable gaps for the agent to navigate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (contextName), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('React Context providers') and explicitly names React Context, which distinguishes it from sibling state-store tools like get_zustand_stores and get_redux_state. It clearly states what the tool does: enumerates providers and their current values.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite many sibling tools for different state management systems, it does not mention any selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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