list_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state the return shape (array vs paginated envelope), whether results are ordered, whether an empty filter set means 'all', or any permission requirement. Only the schema's default limit of 50 hints at pagination.

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 tight sentence with the resource and filter capability front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is short to the point of under-specification rather than bloated, so it scores well on structure alone.

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 filterable list tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits return format, ordering, and how it differs from search_context. An agent can call it from the schema alone, but disambiguation and result expectations are left to inference.

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% and each parameter (tag, limit, context_type enum, related_entity_id) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds only token-level context and no syntax, semantics, or combination rules 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (saved context entries) with a hint at filter capability, so the agent knows what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling search_context, which is a near-neighbor in the same resource family.

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?

'With optional filters' gestures at usage but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direction to search_context when full-text matching is needed versus plain enumeration here. For a tool with overlapping siblings, this is a real gap.

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