Get tenant scoping context

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, which already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. It adds concrete behavioral details: the operation is deterministic for a given request, validates nothing, mutates nothing, and touches no external system. It also explains the transport-specific behavior (header vs. None) and the audit-log stamping. This rich context significantly aids the agent in predicting the tool's behavior and 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 succinct yet comprehensive. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then systematically covers usage, transport behavior, side-effectfulness, the argument, and the return format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It specifies the exact return payload ({"service": "camt053-mcp", "tenant": str | None}), the behavior under different transports, and the audit-log relationship. An agent has all the information needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result without any further lookup.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description explicitly notes that the 'ctx' argument is auto-injected and carries the underlying HTTP request when present, which clarifies the only (implicit) input. Since there are no user-supplied parameters to document, this is complete. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the auto-injected context, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Return the multi-tenant scoping context of the current call.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which deal with tenant context retrieval. The purpose is unambiguous, so an agent can easily recognize when to use this 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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Use this to confirm which tenant/account scope the server attributes the session to.' It also explains transport-dependent behavior and how the value maps to the audit log, giving an agent context on when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though no sibling appears to serve a similar purpose. Since the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusion language, it earns a 4.

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