Context Engine MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns multiple structured outputs (file summaries, snippets, related files, memories), respects token limits, and is optimized for prompt enhancement. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like performance impact or caching behavior beyond the 'bypass_cache' parameter.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, usage guidelines) and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Returns' list more tightly with the purpose statement.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides strong context on purpose, usage, and behavioral outputs. It covers what the tool returns and when to use it, but lacks details on error handling or output format specifics, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 six parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic context is provided.

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 as 'Get relevant codebase context optimized for prompt enhancement' and specifies it's 'the primary tool for understanding code and gathering context before making changes.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file' (single file retrieval) and 'semantic_search' (general search) by emphasizing comprehensive, optimized context gathering for prompt enhancement.

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 explicit 'Use this tool when you need to:' guidelines with five specific scenarios (e.g., 'Understand how a feature is implemented,' 'Find relevant code before making changes'). This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file' for single files or 'semantic_search' for general searches.

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