timps_context_switcher

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains a concrete behavior: it reads current system/git context, detects distraction apps, and generates a script to quit them. It also scopes the effect accurately as a generated script rather than implying it directly kills apps. It does not clarify where the script is placed or whether it is returned as text, but for a zero-parameter tool this is enough.

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?

Two tight, purposeful sentences. The first gives the analysis scope; the second explains the actionable output. No redundant language or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the main required concepts: inputs examined, purpose, behavior, and deliverable. It falls slightly short of full completeness by not saying what the generated script looks like, where it goes, or how this tool fits into a larger context-switching workflow.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not provide parameter details because none are needed; it instead explains what the tool analyzes, which is appropriate for this schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Analyse current work context', with concrete scope including active apps, estimated browser tabs, git branch, and recent commits. It separates itself from siblings by adding a unique deliverable: 'Identifies distraction apps and generates a focus-mode script to quit them.'

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 intended use is implied rather than explicit: the description suggests this is useful when someone wants to understand or recenter their work context and reduce distractions by generating a focus script. However, it does not say when to prefer it over sibling tools like timps_context_briefing or timps_full_checkup, and it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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