brc_list_company_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full transparency burden. It discloses that 'connection credentials are never returned' and advises against showing technical fields to normal users. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides user-facing presentation rules. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return format by specifying 'customerMessage text and the plain company names' and what to avoid showing. However, it lacks details on the full response structure, pagination, or ordering. For a simple list tool with no parameters, this is adequate but could be more complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it correctly confirms that no inputs are needed.

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's purpose: 'Lists company contexts currently connected in this MCP server session.' The verb 'lists' and resource 'company contexts' are specific. Among sibling tools, this is the only one for company contexts, distinguishing it from other list tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides presentation instructions but no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to related tools like brc_start_company_connection or brc_confirm_company_connection. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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