context_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description aligns with them ('READ-ONLY', 'Local disk read with no side effects'). It adds extra context: the tool returns an object with specific fields, and explicitly says no MCP tool can change what it reports. This goes beyond the bare annotations and gives a clear behavioral model.

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 densely packed and every clause adds information, but it runs long as one paragraph. It front-loads READ-ONLY and the core function, then proceeds logically through usage, alternatives, constraints, and return value. It could be slightly trimmed, but there is no filler or 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?

For a read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, sibling relationships, human-only mutation boundary, parameter semantics, and the return shape (revision, scope, freshness, exclusions, cluster metadata). This is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the 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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter project_path, and the description restates the exact same guidance (omit to use machine-wide, omit when pinned). Since the schema already fully explains the parameter, the description adds no new semantic value here, keeping the score at the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('inspect') and names the resource ('the consolidated Context itself'), then lists exactly what it reports: revision id, freshness, excluded sources, and cluster metadata. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming context_delivery and context_projection, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'use it to decide whether the context an agent is working from is stale or is missing something on purpose.' It also gives alternatives by comparing with context_delivery and context_projection, and states that refresh/rollback/adopt/retire are human-only, so this tool is not for mutations.

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