context_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the server uses the startup-resolved DOCKER_HOST/current-context, so changing contexts only affects subprocess-based tools, not the docker-py SDK client. It also mentions the RuntimeError on failure and 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?

Concise yet informative; each sentence adds value—purpose, concept, server behavior, alternatives, error handling, and return type. No unnecessary fluff, and the purpose 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the concept, behavior, return structure (list of dicts with at least name, description, dockerEndpoint, current), and failure mode, covering all necessary context.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter documentation, and it appropriately focuses on output details instead. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 lists Docker CLI contexts known to the host, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming context_inspect and context_use, showing exactly what this tool does versus alternatives.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use context_inspect for one context's full config and context_use to switch.' It also explains the server's DOCKER_HOST/current-context behavior, giving context for when listing is useful and when other tools are needed.

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