Get Multiple Context Values (Internal)

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

The description says 'fetch,' implying a read-only operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint to false, indicating the tool may not be read-only. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no side effects or internal behaviors are disclosed beyond what annotations already imply.

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 concise sentence that includes the key elements: internal endpoint, action, resource, and mechanism. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., a map of context names to values), but it does not. It also lacks information about how multiple values are returned, error behavior, or how it differs from the singular sibling, leaving an agent underinformed.

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 both parameters (api_key and context_names) already described in the input schema. The description's mention of 'internal api_key' adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 action (fetch), the resource (multiple context values), and the method (by name using an internal api_key). It also distinguishes from the singular sibling tool lyzr_get_context_value_internal by explicitly indicating 'multiple'.

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 notes this is an 'Internal endpoint,' which provides some audience context, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_get_context_value_internal or lyzr_get_context_by_name_internal. No exclusions or decision criteria are given.

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