Pathfinder MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool compresses context into 'summary artifacts,' implying a read/write operation that transforms data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'summary artifacts' entail. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies session context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter info. There's no wasted text, and it's structured clearly with bullet points for Args. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args into a single sentence, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (compression operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects and parameter nuances. For a context-manipulation tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it lists 'session_id: Session ID' under Args, which matches the single parameter in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format, constraints, or examples. However, since there's only one parameter and it's straightforward, the baseline is met but not exceeded.

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's purpose: 'Compress session context into summary artifacts.' It specifies the verb ('compress') and resource ('session context'), and distinguishes it from siblings like health_check or save_plan. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., implement_phase might also process context), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use when context utilization exceeds 60%'—this gives a specific threshold for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an AI agent to decide when to use it.

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