context_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral details: expired entries are skipped and purged (a side effect), and values are deliberately omitted, directing users to context_get. This goes beyond the bare listing and reveals the tool mutates state by purging, making it transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information. It avoids repetition and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what is returned (keys with save/expiry times), what is not returned (values), and side effects (purge). It falls short on explaining the app_id parameter and any output ordering or pagination, but those are minor gaps.

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 only parameter, app_id, has a schema title 'App Id' but the description never mentions it, leaving its meaning and purpose unexplained. Given schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for the parameter gap but does not, adding no value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'your saved context keys with save/expiry times'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like context_get (values) and context_expire by explicitly noting values are omitted, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit alternative: 'values omitted — use context_get', telling the agent when to use this tool vs. sibling context_get. It also sets expectations about behavior ('Expired entries are skipped and purged'), which helps decide if this tool is appropriate given state implications.

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