hermes_contexts

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a specific behavioral guarantee that 'close never deletes Hermes data,' which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies safety. No contradictions with annotations, and the tool is low-risk, so this level of disclosure is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core actions (list, inspect, close) and adds a crucial caveat about data safety. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with all parameters optional and documented, an output schema present, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness. The description adequately covers the actions and a behavioral guarantee. It does not explicitly address parameter-action pairing, but the schema descriptions already convey that, so the overall context is sufficient.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Mapping operation', 'Select a mapping by A2A contextId'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 function: listing, inspecting, or closing bridge-owned conversation/context mappings. It names the specific resource and actions, making the purpose unambiguous. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, the resource is distinct enough that the purpose is 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 implies its usage for managing context mappings but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings are clearly different in scope, so the decision is straightforward, but the lack of explicit routing or exclusion prevents a higher score.

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