get_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contribution is only the subject matter of the query (open documents, active editor); it says nothing about return shape, freshness, or cost. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a baseline 3 is warranted.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key noun phrase (which documents) is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement of action, which costs a point against perfect concision-and-clarity, but there is no waste.

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-only state getter with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient but omits any indication of when the returned context matters or what the agent can do with it. It is adequate but leaves a clear gap given the many editing siblings that would consume this context.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter guidance is required or missing.

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 names the specific information returned: which Electronics documents are open in Fusion and which editor is active. That is more concrete than the generic name 'get_context' and lets an agent distinguish it from document-manipulation siblings like open_design or close_design. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. The agent must infer that this is a state-inspection call needed before deciding what to open or edit. No prerequisites or follow-up guidance are given.

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