Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: automatic eTag fetching when omitted, navigation path determination logic ('Enable navigation link checkbox'), return behavior ('Returns assignment details with navigation breadcrumb information'), and optimistic locking requirement. It doesn't cover rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial operational 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 moderately long but contains some redundant phrasing ('Jumps to the previously visited navigation step from the current step' repeats the initial purpose). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more streamlined. Some sentences like the final one about eTag requirements could be integrated more efficiently.

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 complex navigation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive coverage. It explains the core operation, return behavior, and some constraints, but doesn't detail error scenarios, performance characteristics, or complete behavioral nuances. Given the complexity, it meets minimum viable standards but leaves gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema - it mentions eTag auto-fetching and viewType behavior for breadcrumbs, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for parameters like 'content', 'pageInstructions', or 'attachments'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Navigate back to the previously visited step in a screen flow or multi-step form assignment.' It specifies the verb ('navigate back') and resource ('previously visited step'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jump_to_step' or 'get_next_assignment', which appear to handle different navigation operations.

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 implies when to use this tool ('for multi-step forms and screen flows') and mentions prerequisites ('requires an eTag from a previous assignment API call'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusion criteria or direct comparison to sibling tools.

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