sylve_context_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that it reads a local YAML config file rather than the cluster API — but says nothing about output shape, empty results, or error behavior when the file is missing.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It omits only minor details such as return format and behavior when the config file is absent, which the annotations partly compensate for.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the `node` and `context` parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only explains the config file that `context` refers to, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (List) and resource (configured Sylve login contexts) plus the exact source file, so the agent knows precisely what is returned. It does not reference any sibling tool or contrast its role (e.g., versus sylve_whoami or sylve_cluster_status), so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery step for valid context names before calling other tools, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. No prerequisites or follow-up guidance are given.

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