ui_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rich set of returned context (page view, plan version, tab, selection, save comparison, others' plan versions and chat solves since last look), which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active page session, or any permissions or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then follows with usage triggers. It is appropriately sized and largely free of filler, though the second paragraph is a long list-like sentence that could be marginally tighter.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It describes returned context well, but it completely omits the meaning and usage of the two input parameters, leaving an agent unable to know when or how to supply 'save' or 'world'.

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% and the description does not explain the two optional parameters 'save' and 'world'. It mentions 'save' only in the context of output comparison ('whether the page reads the same save as you'), not as an input parameter, and never mentions 'world' at all.

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 specific resource – the web page's open state and plan changes since last look – and lists the exact context items it returns (view, plan, version, tab, selection, save comparison, others' activity). It is clear and specific, but it does not differentiate itself from any named 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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: call it first when the user says 'this', 'here', or 'what I have open'. That is clear contextual usage guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tool.

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