ap_get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the operation as a read and discloses an important limitation: the layer object itself is an opaque pointer and only selection status can be reported. This is genuine behavioral transparency beyond a field list.

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 with no filler. The core purpose and field list come first, and the crucial layer-pointer caveat is placed in the second sentence. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is the sole source of behavioral and return-value knowledge. It provides a comprehensive enumeration of returned fields and flags the one inaccessible piece of data. Nothing essential is missing for calling this no-argument read tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on return content rather than parameters.

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 identifies the action ('read') and the resource ('live painting context'), then enumerates the exact fields returned: active tool, brush properties, viewport mode, x-ray flag, layer/material selection state, and material name. This detailed scope differentiates it from sibling getters like ap_get_app_info and ap_get_config.

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 phrase 'the workhorse read' implies this is the general-purpose context query, and the listed fields make the use case evident. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as ap_material_get_active or ap_select_tool, nor any when-not-to-use note.

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