manage_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two operations and their effects, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes persist across sessions, error conditions, or what 'mockd server' represents. It provides basic operational context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly explain the tool's functionality. The first sentence states the overall purpose, and the second explains the two action modes. Every word serves a clear purpose with no 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate operational guidance but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what a 'context' represents, what 'mockd server' is, whether switching affects other operations, or what format the 'get' output returns. The description covers basic usage but leaves significant gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context about parameter usage: it explains that 'get' shows current and available contexts, while 'switch' requires a name parameter to change servers. With 100% schema description coverage, this supplemental guidance elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('view' and 'switch') and resource ('active admin server context'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on context management rather than mock management, logging, or chaos configuration.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'get' to see current and available contexts, and 'switch' to change the mockd server. It clearly differentiates the two modes of operation without needing to reference sibling tools.

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