context-info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'reports' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or modifications. It also omits details about permissions, error handling, or whether the report is a summary or detailed output. This lack of transparency could lead to assumptions about safety or capabilities.

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 that efficiently enumerates the reported items. It avoids redundancy and extraneous details, maintaining a clean and focused structure. This exemplary conciseness ensures clarity without sacrificing necessary 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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete in listing the content of the report. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the report, nor clarify the meaning of 'available areas' (e.g., screen areas, workspace areas). While not critical, addressing these ambiguities would enhance completeness for a user unfamiliar with the context.

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 no parameters, and the schema accurately reflects this with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain any inputs, and the absence of parameters is clear from the schema. Since there are no parameters to misinterpret, the semantics are straightforward and complete.

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 the tool reports active object, selected objects, mode, mesh select mode, and available areas. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling context tools, though it could be more explicit about the output format. Overall, the purpose is evident and unambiguous.

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 other context-related tools like context-areas or context-set_active. It lacks any indication of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. Users must infer its role from the name and listing of reported items, which is insufficient for clear usage direction.

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