get_call_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 the source files (~/.config/api-mind/...) and the default environment ('Defaults to dev'). It implies a read-only operation by describing a 'return' of context, but doesn't explicitly declare non-mutation. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare description.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and where it reads from. No redundancy, front-loaded purpose, and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It doesn't detail error scenarios or exact return format, but given the simplicity and 100% schema coverage, it is reasonably complete. Could be slightly more explicit about what happens if files are missing, but not a major gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both 'api' and 'env'. The description reiterates the default for env ('Defaults to dev') but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra params are explained.

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: 'Returns the runtime context needed to execute API calls' and specifies the output components (base URL, environment, credentials/parameter defaults). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly contrasting with list_endpoints and get_endpoint_schema.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this before constructing a curl command when the user wants to actually invoke an endpoint.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT call this just to browse or understand the API shape — use list_endpoints and get_endpoint_schema for that.' This fully addresses when and when not to use the tool.

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