list_context_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that each entry includes an 'identity' object (or null) joined from the cross-project identity record, enabling callers to see allowed_roles without a second lookup. While it doesn't cover every trait (e.g., pagination), it meaningfully discloses return structure and join behavior.

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 three sentences of substantive content: purpose, usage guidance, and a return-value detail. It is front-loaded with the primary action and each sentence earns its place, though the third sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete for a list tool: it states the scope, explains a key return field (identity), and gives usage context. It lacks explicit mention of sorting, pagination, or error cases, but remains strong for typical list operations.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('project' and 'user'), so the description doesn't need to explain them. It mentions 'project' in context but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'distinct context authors/roles' and scopes it to 'saved session state for a project.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_identity and upsert_identity by focusing on existing context authors rather than identity management.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'avoid creating duplicate contexts from naming variations' and 'check whether your own author's context already exists.' It also references upsert_identity for related actions, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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