wpf_get_data_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes what the tool returns (DataContext with type info, properties, INPC status, inheritance chain). It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only diagnostic tool, that is acceptable.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and output, the second adds practical context. Every word earns its place.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it specifies what is included and why. It could mention that the element must be in the visual tree, but overall it covers essentials.

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 0%, requiring description to compensate. The description implies element_handle identifies an element but does not explicitly define the parameter. Context helps, but explicit description is lacking.

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 gets the DataContext for an element, listing included data (type info, properties, INPC status, inheritance chain) and its use case (diagnosing binding path errors). This distinguishes it from siblings like wpf_get_bindings and wpf_get_visual_tree.

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 states it is 'essential for diagnosing binding path errors,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is strong.

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