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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields and the important constraint that context ids are user-defined and unknown ids are rejected. This is helpful context that the annotations do not 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary use case. It packs purpose, return contents, and a critical constraint into two sentences with no wasted words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to use the tool, what it returns, and the caveat about not guessing context ids. There is no meaningful missing context for this simple read-only operation.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It goes slightly beyond the empty schema by describing the returned fields, which is useful context for the caller. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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: retrieving the user's context ids and metadata. It specifies the resource (contexts), the returned fields (id, label, color, order), and its role as a prerequisite for several sibling tools, making it easy to distinguish from other list or context-management tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before passing a context to list_next_actions, list_cards, create_card, or update_card, or when the user asks which contexts they have. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple read-only listing tool this is not a significant gap.

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