set_context

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

The description reveals that the tool modifies the active context (a behavioral trait not covered by any annotations, as none are provided). It does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the UIA element tree changes or if element references become invalid after switching. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially discloses behavior.

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 sentence of 20 words, making it highly concise. It front-loads the action ('Switch the active context') and then provides concrete examples. Every phrase earns its place. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullet points for clarity, but the current form is effective.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains both valid input categories and hints at a prerequisite (calling get_contexts). However, it could be more complete by mentioning that switching context may invalidate previous element references, which would help the agent avoid errors. The sibling tools are diverse, but this description adequately differentiates set_context from the rest.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the specific values accepted ('NATIVE_APP' or 'WEBVIEW_<id>'), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Context name to switch to'. However, it does not clarify formatting nuances of the WEBVIEW_<id> or error handling, so it does not exceed the baseline significantly.

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: to switch the active context. It specifies the exact verb ('switch') and resource ('active context'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the two possible input values ('NATIVE_APP' for UIA tree, or a 'WEBVIEW_<id>' from get_contexts), which sets it apart from other context-related tools like get_current_context or get_contexts.

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 clear context on when to use each type of input (return to native app or switch to webview), and implicitly guides the agent to first call get_contexts to obtain the WEBVIEW_<id> values. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name any alternatives, slightly lowering the score from 5.

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