list_compute_contexts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a trivial scope ('Viya environment') and does not mention pagination behavior implied by limit/start parameters or filtering via filter_name. Since annotations carry the main behavioral disclosure, a 3 is appropriate; the description does not contradict them.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource. However, it is likely under-specified for the given complex tool, but conciseness itself is efficient. The lack of additional context is more a completeness issue, so this dimension gets a 4.

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?

Despite having an output schema and thorough annotations, the description lacks critical context: no explanation of what a compute context is, no usage guidance, no parameter semantics, and no mention of pagination or filtering. The tool is simple, but an agent cannot determine when to invoke it or how to use the optional parameters without more detail. This is insufficient for accurate tool selection.

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 for the three parameters (limit, start, filter_name). It provides no meaning beyond the schema's default values, making it impossible for an agent to understand the semantics of filter_name or pagination parameters. This is a significant omission, warranting a score of 1.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'compute contexts' with an environment scope ('Viya'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_compute_libraries or list_compute_tables because the resource is different, though it doesn't explicitly explain what a compute context is or how it differs from those siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools for listing different compute-related resources.

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