appium_context

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by stating that switch changes the context. It also discloses that list returns both all contexts and the current context. Deeper behavioral details such as switch failure modes or side effects are not covered, but the basic mutation behavior is transparent 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately explains both enum actions, making it quick for an agent to parse.

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?

The schema covers all parameters, and the description covers the primary behavioral outcomes for both actions. Minor missing details like switch failure behavior or return format are not essential given the schema and annotations present.

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%, with every parameter already documented including enum values, the context requirement for switch, and the sessionId default. The description adds little beyond restating the action outcomes, which is acceptable given the schema carries the semantic load.

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 manages Appium contexts and specifies two concrete actions: list returns all contexts plus the current context, and switch changes to a target context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting the context resource, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 internal routing guidance by explaining what each action does, so an agent knows whether to use list or switch. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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