estimate_context_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'estimates' but does not clarify if it is a read-only operation, whether it validates server names, or what happens if a server doesn't exist. The output format is also unspecified.

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 concise with two sentences plus an args line. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with a helpful elaboration. The only minor issue is that it’s in German, which might be inconsistent with the English tool name, but it’s still clear.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric estimate, a percentage, or a range). It only states 'estimate context window usage' without mentioning output format, units, or success/error cases. This gap makes it less complete for an agent to understand post-invocation behavior.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning to the single parameter 'server_names'. It explains it as a list of server names and provides an example (['solana', 'weather']), which clarifies the input format. However, it does not specify constraints like valid server names or if the list should be from the available catalog.

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: to estimate the context window consumption for a combination of MCP servers. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('context-window consumption'), and the sibling tools (analyze_task, get_server_catalog, etc.) are distinct in their functions, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 usage context: when you need to understand how much context budget a particular server combination consumes before using them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving room for ambiguity.

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