list_react_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'cross-file' to indicate a project-wide search, but omits whether the tool returns a list, is read-only, or requires a loaded project. The listed patterns give some insight into search criteria, but output format and side effects remain unspecified.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single fragment to convey the tool's focus, and front-loads the key term 'React contexts'. It avoids fluff and every word contributes to the meaning. However, it is not a full sentence and could be more structured with a leading verb.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, when to use it among many similar React analysis tools, or how the 'name' parameter relates to the search. It is a minimal scope statement rather than a complete usage guide.

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 fully covers the single parameter 'name' with a description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema is sufficient.

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 identifies the resource (React contexts) and scope (cross-file), and specifies the exact patterns covered (createContext, providers, consumers). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'finds', making the action implicit from the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on context patterns rather than components or hooks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_react_components or find_references. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or any exclusions. It only states the tool's scope without any comparative context.

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