explain_request_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Summarize' implies a read-only aggregation, but the description does not state side effects, permission requirements, or whether the required definitionRelativePath must resolve to a real file. It only hints at output content, leaving most behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with an undocumented required parameter.

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 a required parameter, three undocumented params at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine how to satisfy definitionRelativePath or how the three context sources are resolved and returned.

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 0% across three parameters, including the required definitionRelativePath, yet the description says nothing about what any parameter means or does. The mention of 'optional endpoint snippet' does not map clearly to requestId, workspaceRoot, or definitionRelativePath, so the description fails to compensate for the total schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize') and enumerates the exact resources being summarized (YAML keys, .env.mcp.local keys, session keys, endpoint snippet), so an agent can form a concrete expectation of the output. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like summarize_api_definition or get_environment_variable, which cover overlapping config/key territory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as summarize_api_definition, get_environment_variable, or read_api_definition, nor any stated prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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