get_api_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 states that the tool returns API signatures, parameters, etc., but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites. The name implies it is a lookup, but explicit transparency would improve the score.

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 long: the first states the core purpose, and the second gives examples and a usage recommendation. It is front-loaded, concise, and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the tool's inputs (natural language query, optional filters) and outputs (signatures, params, docs, examples). However, it does not specify the output format or structure (since no output schema), nor does it mention constraints like network requirements or limits. For a 5-parameter tool, this is mostly complete but missing a few details.

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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only a brief mention of natural language handling, which relates to the 'query' parameter, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already includes.

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 it gets 'precise API signatures, parameters, return types, prose documentation, and code examples for any npm package.' The verb 'Get' and specific resource are well-defined, and the scope (npm packages) distinguishes it from siblings like 'diagnose_error' or 'scan_project_deps'.

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 explicitly recommends this tool ('RECOMMENDED: ... Always try this first.'), implying it is the default for API queries. It provides example queries, which clarifies the kind of input to use. However, it does not list alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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