get_agent_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it returns context for a single agent (not all agents), handles responsibilities (implementation vs. coordination), includes specific data types (icons, styles, transition elements), and generates agent-specific instructions with coordination rules. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (HOW IT WORKS, RETURNS, TYPICAL WORKFLOW) and uses bullet points for clarity. It is appropriately sized, but some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Handles responsibilities: what to implement vs coordinate' is slightly redundant). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's role in a workflow, what it returns, and how to use it. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., structure of 'section' or 'instructions'), which is a gap. It compensates by listing return components but lacks depth on their semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'sectionId' and 'agentIndex' in the workflow but doesn't explain their semantics further (e.g., how sectionId relates to analyze_page_structure output). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Prepare agent context for parallel implementation of a section.' It specifies the verb ('prepare') and resource ('agent context') with a specific scope ('for parallel implementation of a section'). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_page_structure (which identifies sections) and get_section_screenshot (which provides visual references).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call after analyze_page_structure to identify sections' and 'For each section: get_section_screenshot → visual reference' then 'get_agent_context(sectionId, agentIndex) → agent-specific context.' It includes a TYPICAL WORKFLOW section that outlines the sequence and alternatives (e.g., using get_section_screenshot for visual reference).

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