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. It describes the tool's behavior (retrieving file contents, supporting line ranges) but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for usage and a final sentence for alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (file retrieval with optional line ranges), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., text content, metadata) and error cases, leaving some gaps for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 parameters (path, start_line, end_line). The description mentions 'specific line ranges within large files', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it. 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 with specific verbs ('retrieve complete or partial contents') and resource ('a file from the codebase'). It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with semantic_search and get_context_for_prompt for multi-file operations, making the scope unambiguous.

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 guidance with a bulleted list of when to use this tool ('View the full implementation', 'Examine files found via semantic_search', etc.) and explicitly names alternatives ('use semantic_search or get_context_for_prompt instead') for searching across multiple files, offering clear context and exclusions.

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