mah_get_patient_context

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: the value is authoritative, read from the portal rather than recalled. That clarifies freshness/trustworthiness, though it says nothing about what happens before sign-in or when no active patient exists.

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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose is stated first and the trust caveat second. It is efficiently sized, though the leading fragment reads as a phrase rather than a complete statement.

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 zero-parameter read the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what the returned context actually contains (identifier, name, portal session). One clause naming the return shape would close the gap.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 conveys the resource ('which patient the reading tools are currently returning data for') but phrases it as a noun clause with no verb, and it never explicitly says it returns the active patient context. It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings like mah_list_patients or mah_set_active_patient, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The clause 'confirmed with the portal rather than reported from memory' hints at source reliability but does not tell the agent when to call this versus mah_list_patients or mah_set_active_patient.

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