get-required-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 describes what the tool does but provides no information about response format, error conditions, rate limits, or other behavioral characteristics. The description is purely functional without operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with a helpful parenthetical example. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary verbiage. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 is insufficiently complete. While it explains what the tool does conceptually, it provides no information about the return format, what 'required parent context' looks like in practice, or how to interpret results. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing structural information.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'role' parameter clearly documented as 'The ARIA role name'. The description adds the helpful example showing what kind of output to expect, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: to retrieve required parent context for a given ARIA role. It provides a specific example ('listitem requires list or group') that illustrates the concept. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-required-owned' or 'get-role-hierarchy' which might have related functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be better suited for different scenarios. The example helps illustrate the concept but doesn't provide usage guidance.

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