get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is returned but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, safe, or has no side effects. It also doesn't clarify what 'session health' means or whether any data is fresh. This is a minimal disclosure, insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the action verb 'Return' followed by a comma-separated list of the three components. No filler or redundant wording; the description is concise and gets straight to the point.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this description is the primary documentation. It lists all major return areas (active site, captured sites, session health). The absence of detail about each component's structure is a minor gap, but for a simple context getter, the description is reasonably complete for initial selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters, which gives a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning by enumerating the returned context items, effectively telling the agent what the tool is for. Since there are no parameters to document, the description fulfills its role adequately.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: returning three named data components (active site, captured sites, session health). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_active_site and get_health by presenting a combined context view, making it evident this is an aggregate 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 explicit guidance on when to use get_context versus calling sibling tools individually. While the combined purpose is implied, the description does not state scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable.

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