list_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the backward-compatibility note adds useful context. However, it does not explain what the optional registry parameter does or whether the behavior changes when it is provided.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The backward-compatibility note is concise and earns its place by providing actionable guidance.

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 listing tool the core purpose and preferred alternative are clear. The main gap is the undocumented 'registry' parameter, which could affect whether the agent calls the tool correctly or with an unnecessary or invalid argument.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'registry' parameter at all. An agent can infer only from the parameter name and default null that it is optional, but the description does not clarify whether it filters results or selects a specific registry.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all available schema contexts.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from nearby siblings like create_context and count_contexts by focusing on listing existing contexts.

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 this tool is maintained for backward compatibility and recommends the 'registry://{name}/contexts' resource instead for better performance. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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