get_context_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what kind of information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the argument example following. Every sentence is minimal and no text is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 a simple read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return shape or any behavioral constraints, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter name ('context') and concrete path examples ('/obj', '/stage', '/out'), which add meaningful format guidance. However, it does not enumerate valid context types or explain what each context path represents.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a Houdini network context'), which is clear enough. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_stage_info, get_scene_info, or get_network_overview, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The examples of context paths ('/obj', '/stage', '/out') hint at scope but do not explain when this tool is preferred over related info-retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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