brc_list_company_contexts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that connection credentials are never returned and that technical fields like credentialType and expiresAt should be hidden. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as performance, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving some gaps.

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?

Description is three sentences: the first states core purpose, the second and third provide usage instructions. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple listing tool. It explains what the tool does, how to present results, and what not to expose. Could optionally describe the return structure (e.g., array of objects with customerMessage and companyName), but not strictly necessary.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so description has no additional parameter information to provide. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'company contexts' with scope 'currently connected in this MCP server session'. Sibling tools include many list tools for other entities, but none for company contexts, so it is distinct.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on presenting results: show customerMessage and plain names, hide technical fields unless asked, and note that credentials are never returned. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient given no alternative tools.

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