get_programming_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'bounded' and includes 'explicit unknowns,' a useful hint about response behavior, but does not explain freshness, failure modes, or what 'bounded' concretely limits.

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 filler; the key resource and its main qualifiers are front-loaded. The list of contents is dense and somewhat jargon-heavy, but every word contributes.

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?

With an output schema and strong annotations, the return contract and safety profile are covered, so the description only needs to clarify purpose and invocation context. It does not give enough usage context to distinguish this bundled snapshot from the many sibling getters, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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 input schema has one optional boolean, includeGeometry, with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description never mentions it. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning about when to set it or what geometry it adds.

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 identifies the resource as a 'Bounded live/fixture context bundle' and enumerates its contents (operations, referenced tools, revision, coverage, explicit unknowns), so an agent can infer it returns a context snapshot. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does not position itself against sibling getters like get_machine_context or get_fixture_info.

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 given about when to call this tool or which sibling to prefer. The description only names the bundle contents; it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the relationship to get_fixture_info/get_machine_context.

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