get_huly_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds critical behavioral guarantees: it does not connect to Huly and never returns secrets (tokens, passwords, credential headers). This goes beyond the structured metadata and is highly valuable for an AI agent's safety reasoning.

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: the first front-loads the primary purpose and contents, the second adds essential safety caveats. Every word earns its place; it is concise, structured, and free of redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, rich output list) and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in signals), the description sufficiently covers the return values and usage context. It also notes the lack of network interaction and secret exposure, making the tool's behavior fully predictable. Sibling tool differentiation is implicitly clear.

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 the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input details.

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 returns sanitized runtime and configuration context for the Huly MCP session, enumerating specific contents like version, transport, auth mode, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version (specific version only) and get_tool_schema (schema). The verb 'returns' plus resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving session context without connecting to Huly, making it safe for preliminary checks. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'for version only, use get_version'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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