List Contexts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the pagination behavior, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like default ordering, scope, or whether all contexts are returned. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that communicates the essential function and a key feature (pagination). There is zero redundancy or filler, and the information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with comprehensive schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention what the response contains (e.g., context metadata) or default ordering, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity. The pagination note covers the main complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'skip' and 'limit', including defaults and max values. The description's mention of pagination aligns with these parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'contexts', which precisely identifies the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_context, create_context, and update_context by indicating a collection listing operation. The phrase 'with pagination' further clarifies the scope.

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 or get_contexts_count. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and title, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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