get_current_context

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

With readOnlyHint=true the safety profile is already covered, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing the four pieces of state it surfaces (site_id, API URL, session, account). This is meaningful because there is no output schema, so the description is the only signal about what comes back.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the first defines the payload, the second gives the ordering advice. The most actionable instruction ('call this first') is placed where it will be read immediately.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and when to call it. The exact shape of the returned payload (field names, nesting) is still unspecified, but that is a minor gap given the tool's diagnostic nature.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current connection context') and enumerates exactly what that context contains: site_id, API URL, session, and account info. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it never names or contrasts with adjacent siblings like get_site_info or list_my_sites, which also touch on site identity.

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?

'Call this first to confirm you're working on the right site' gives an explicit sequencing directive and the goal that motivates the call, which is exactly what an agent needs before mutating a site. It does not state when *not* to use it or point at alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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