Find semantic contexts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context on top: it distinguishes editable user-managed contexts from read-only Tableau-managed ones, and discloses an API limitation ('doesn't filter by text yet'). It stops short of describing result ordering or volume, but with an output schema present that is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loaded definition, then two scannable bullets for the two filtering modes, then the alternative-tool note. No filler sentences; every clause conveys a distinct rule the agent needs.

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 three-optional-parameter list tool with annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete — filtering behavior and result mutability are both covered. The only gap is the unexplained `graph_id` parameter, which matters for an agent operating across multiple graphs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully explains `node` (accepts an id or a description) and `is_global` (true/false/omitted semantics), but `graph_id` is never mentioned in the description or the schema, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 semantic contexts') and immediately defines what a semantic context actually is (definitions, rules, caveats attached to the graph). The closing line explicitly routes text-meaning lookups to the sibling search_nodes, so an agent can separate it from the other search tools without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branches: with `node` scopes to that node's contexts, without `node` returns everything with `is_global` narrowing to graph-wide vs node-attached. It also names the alternative (search_nodes) for the case this tool cannot serve, which is exactly the exclusion guidance the dimension asks for.

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