Discover personal context routes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add meaningful context. It does so by specifying exactly what the tool lists (canonical project IDs, aliases, task aliases, route names), which is behaviorally useful for an agent. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the action, the output contents, and the intended usage context in a compact, readable form.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and the strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what will be returned and when to call the tool, which is all an agent needs to invoke it correctly alongside sibling tools.

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 schema is empty and the description cannot meaningfully elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description sufficiently clarifies that this is a simple list/discovery operation with no input requirements.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: canonical project IDs, exact aliases, task aliases, and route names. It also frames the tool as a prerequisite step ('before choosing project_hint or route_hint'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_query.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('before choosing project_hint or route_hint'), giving clear contextual timing. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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