list_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing: no mention of side effects, read-only vs. mutating behavior, rate limits, pagination, or what the returned data represents. This is essentially a black box with no behavioral information at all.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks any informative content; a single verb phrase does not earn its place as it provides no value. While brevity is generally positive, here it is taken to an extreme that renders the description useless.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot infer the required inputs (repository_id, target_commit) or what the output will be. Given the complexity implied by the schema and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is far from complete.

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 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters are explained by the schema descriptions. The tool description adds absolutely nothing about the meaning, format, or relationships of parameters like scope_id, domain_id, concept_id, request_id, snapshot_id, etc. With such a high parameter count and zero coverage, the description is entirely insufficient.

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 is 'list contexts', which is a tautology of the tool name. It restates the name without providing a verb for any specific action, resource, or scope. No distinction is made from sibling tools like list_scopes, list_domains, or list_concepts, leaving the agent unable to know what a 'context' actually is or how this tool differs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single phrase with no context, no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool (e.g., list_scopes or graph_context_get) would be more appropriate. The agent is left with zero routing information.

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