list_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool lists 'visible' boards filtered by viewer_tier, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but '列表' (list) implies no side effects. The presence of an output schema compensates for not detailing the return format.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output fields. The second sentence explains the parameter. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter. It is complete enough for a listing tool with a single optional parameter. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for basic usage; the output schema likely handles structure.

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 description adds significant meaning to the viewer_tier parameter beyond the schema. It lists the allowed values (public/recruiter/friend/private) and explains that it determines visibility. The schema only defines it as a string with a default, so the description is essential for correct usage.

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 specifies the verb '列表' (list) and the resource '个人上下文板块' (personal context boards), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also explicitly mentions the fields returned (title, slug, tier, tags). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_context (likely single item retrieval) and search_context (searching).

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 explains the viewer_tier parameter and its effect on visibility, which gives usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_context or search_context, nor does it provide when-not-to-use hints. Sibling names are only available through context signals, not in the description.

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