context_list

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

The description discloses that expired entries are skipped and purged, which is a destructive side effect. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. The purge behavior is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that should either match the annotation or update it.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then gives the key omission, pagination contract, and expiry behavior in exactly the order an agent needs. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description provides the return shape ({contexts, next_cursor}) and pagination semantics despite no output schema, which is strong. However, it leaves the required app_id parameter unexplained and does not describe what an individual context entry looks like, preventing a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cursor behavior through the pagination contract and implies limit usage, but it never explains the required app_id parameter or how it scopes the saved context keys. That is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 saved context keys with save/expiry times, explicitly notes values are omitted, and points to context_get for values. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling context tools while naming the exact resource and operation.

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 gives explicit pagination instructions ('pass the returned next_cursor as cursor') and tells the agent when to use context_get instead. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other context-related siblings, but the core routing guidance is clear.

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