Get Context Value (Internal)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it is an internal endpoint requiring an internal api_key, which is useful context, but it does not disclose the return format or any restrictions beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads 'Internal endpoint' and conveys the essential action. There is no redundant wording, making it maximally concise for the information provided.

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), and annotations are rich, so the brief description covers the basics. However, it lacks any mention of what the return value looks like, how to obtain the internal api_key, or any context about the nature of 'context value', leaving some gaps for broader understanding.

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%, with api_key and context_name already described (e.g., 'API key for internal access'). The description merely repeats these concepts in prose without adding deeper semantics or usage details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 fetches a context's value by its name using an internal api_key, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool lyzr_get_context_by_name_internal, which likely serves a very similar purpose, so some ambiguity remains.

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 phrase 'Internal endpoint' implies restricted usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling context-related tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. It leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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