appium_context

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

Annotations carry no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description itself must disclose side effects. It states that list returns all contexts and the current context, and that switch changes to a target context, which covers the basic effects. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid context, whether the switch persists, or any session-level implications, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the tool's overall purpose, and the second precisely defines the two actions, front-loading the essential information immediately.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits details an agent might need, such as what the switch action returns, error behavior for invalid contexts, and the effect on the active session. It is adequate for a knowledgeable user but not fully complete for autonomous selection and invocation.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by explaining the distinct outcomes of list versus switch, but it does not enrich the context or sessionId parameters beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Manage Appium contexts', and enumerates the two supported actions (list and switch) with distinct effects. It clearly differentiates this tool from the many sibling Appium tools by focusing solely on context management, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 implies that the tool is for managing Appium contexts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no prerequisites or conditions beyond the actions themselves, so an agent must infer usage context from the tool name and description.

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