Context Engine 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a diff but doesn't explain what the output format is (e.g., text, JSON, visual), whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence: 'Generate a diff between two versions of a plan.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (comparing plan versions) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or usage constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that likely returns detailed diff data.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (plan_id, from_version, to_version). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a comparison between versions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding further.

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: 'Generate a diff between two versions of a plan.' It specifies the action ('generate a diff') and resource ('two versions of a plan'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'review_diff' or 'view_history', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing plan versions, or compare it to similar tools like 'review_diff' or 'view_history' in the sibling list. This lack of context leaves the agent uncertain about optimal usage scenarios.

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