get_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output is XML but does not detail performance, side effects, or read-only nature. For a simple retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks deeper behavioral 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 with a front-loaded purpose statement and a separate usage line. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but not overly verbose. It efficiently conveys key information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required string parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and parameter guidance. It could mention session scope or limitations, but overall it is complete for this tool's 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining the 'query' parameter as 'Natural language question or topic (e.g. 'CORS headers configuration')'. This clarifies format beyond the type string, though more examples would help.

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 'Return a query-scoped subgraph context XML,' which specifies the verb, resource, and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_context' by noting this is for targeted questions where full context is too broad.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for targeted technical questions where full session context is too broad,' providing clear guidance on when to use. It implicitly contrasts with siblings that provide broader context, though it does not list explicit alternatives.

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