list_available_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state safety, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of such detail makes behavioral transparency inadequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the verb and clearly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is listed and that descriptions are included. However, it doesn't mention whether the list is sorted or how to interpret 'context types', but given the low complexity and existence of an output schema, this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed. The description doesn't need to compensate for any missing parameter info.

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 all available clearskies context types with a short description. The verb 'List' and specific resource 'clearskies context types' distinguish it from sibling list_available_* tools like list_available_backends or list_available_endpoints.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_context_info for details on a specific context. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the user to infer usage from the name alone.

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