get_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'at the current position' which adds some context about scope, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires an active debugging session, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and the scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of debugging tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, session requirements, return format, and error handling. For a tool in this context, more information is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (stack_depth and session_id) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'current position' relates to stack_depth or session_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'available variable contexts', specifying three types: Local, Superglobals, and User-defined constants. It distinguishes from siblings like get_variable (single variable) and get_variables (multiple variables) by focusing on contexts at the current position, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage when needing variable contexts at the current position, such as during debugging sessions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_variable or get_variables, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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