List Context Studio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' mostly repeats structured data. The description does add the return shape ('JSON attachments and folders') and the limit-capping behavior, which are genuine additions, but nothing about permissions or pagination.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the operation and its scope are front-loaded, followed by routing and return shape. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter, annotated read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, safety, and return shape. The only minor gap is that returned field detail is left entirely to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented (range, default) in the schema. The phrase 'up to limit' reinforces capping but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Context Studio attachments and their folders') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, list_live_contexts and get_studio_entity. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects them ('for Live Context rows', 'for one attachment'), which is strong routing. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or prerequisites, so it is not quite a 5.

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