supportpages_get_context

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the conditional behavior: a local folder yields writing guidance with no sections, inventory, or capacity. That variance in output depending on folder type is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting openWorldHint implications (remote account data, auth needs).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the primary payload, with the conditional caveat placed second where it belongs. The first sentence is a dense list but every item is a distinct returned resource, so nothing is padding.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return shape, the description only needs to convey scope and the local-folder caveat, both of which it does. The one gap is routing: it does not explain why an agent should pick this aggregate call over the narrower sibling tools.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the call returns rather than inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and enumerates the resources returned: writing guidance, sections, article inventory, hosting capacity with billing/management links. An agent can grasp the scope, but the description never distinguishes this aggregate context call from siblings like supportpages_get_capabilities, supportpages_list_sections, or supportpages_list_articles, which appear to return overlapping content.

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 second sentence hints at a usage-relevant condition (local folders return guidance only), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the many sibling list/get tools. Usage is only implied by the name and the aggregated nature of the return.

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