context-areas

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is transparent enough for a simple listing tool. However, it does not disclose what qualifies as 'available' or whether the output includes all areas or only those with existing overrides. It adds minimal context beyond what the name implies.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value: 'List available editor areas for context overrides' is efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple listing tool with no params and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its function. It does not explain the output format, but given the low complexity, that is acceptable. The phrase 'for context overrides' provides useful context about its purpose, making it sufficiently complete for agent selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly contains no parameter details. The baseline 4 applies because there are no schema-driven parameters to clarify.

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 the tool lists available editor areas for context overrides. The verb 'List' and resource 'editor areas' clearly indicate a read-only enumeration. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like context-info, which may also list context-related information, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when to prefer this over context-info or other context tools, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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