Get Context Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context such as what 'usage' includes, return format, or pagination limits. It is consistent with annotations but contributes no additional transparency.

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 clear sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, appropriate for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Complexity is low and annotations are rich, but the description does not elaborate on what 'usage information' includes or what the response will look like, and there is no output schema. A brief note on the nature of usage (e.g., token counts, credits, requests) would make it more complete.

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%: the only parameter 'context_id' is described as 'Context id'. The tool description adds no further meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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'), the resource ('usage information for a context'), and the lookup key ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_get_context, which presumably retrieves context details, by focusing on 'usage'.

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 (if you need usage info for a context, use this) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over related tools like lyzr_get_context or lyzr_get_context_value_internal.

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