ctx_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, default ordering, or pagination behavior — the latter is only inferable from the schema's limit/offset fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the usage context second. No filler, though it is on the terse side.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filters but says nothing about the shape of returned entries, default result ordering, or pagination semantics. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names four filter axes (workspace, project, type, tag) but omits scope, memoryKind, limit, and offset, adding little beyond what the schema already documents.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List context entries') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (workspace, project, type, tag). It implicitly distinguishes itself from ctx_search with 'without a search query', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It clearly states the use case: browsing existing contexts by filter rather than searching. The contrast with a query-based tool is implied but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or naming of ctx_search as the alternative.

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