get_context_statusCheck Claude Code context window fullness before large reads, returning current state and estimated used tokens without network access.
Claude Code context window fullness. Use before big reads, no network. Returns state, used_tokens_est.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transcript_path | No | Path, e.g. s.jsonl. Omit for newest run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's "no network" largely restates structured data. It does add useful return-field disclosure ("state, used_tokens_est"), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about token estimate reliability or what "state" values mean.
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?
Three short, front-loaded fragments with zero filler and the key fact (what it measures) first. The telegraphic style ("Returns state, used_tokens_est" as a bare list) costs a little readability, but nothing is wasted.
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 one-optional-param read-only status check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, an invocation trigger, safety, and the returned fields. The remaining gap is interpretive detail about the returned values, which is minor at this complexity.
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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the default behavior when omitted ("Omit for newest run"). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Claude Code context window fullness" names a specific resource and metric, which no sibling tool covers (proxy status, digests, spans, seal status are all unrelated). It lacks an explicit verb, so the agent infers "report" from the name and the returned fields, but it is clearly distinguishable from siblings.
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?
"Use before big reads" gives one concrete trigger condition, which is more than most tools offer. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of cost or frequency, leaving the agent to infer the rest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.