shared_contexts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds value by noting the 'Requires Novyx Cloud' constraint and stating the return format ('JSON string with shared contexts list'). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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—three sentences plus a return line—with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and delivers key details efficiently.

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 zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers the scope (lists all), requirements (cloud), and output format, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info (none needed), so it meets the expected level.

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 shared contexts the user has access to, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like accept_shared_context and revoke_shared_context. It specifies both directions (shared with you and by you), making the resource and verb very clear.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions listing all shared contexts, which implies use when you need a list, but lacks exclusions or references to related tools for accept/revoke actions.

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