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 discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Retrieve') and the specific metadata returned, but does not mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time versus cached. It provides basic context but leaves gaps in operational details.

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 that front-loads the purpose and lists key data points without unnecessary words. Every element ('Retrieve', 'current index health metadata', specific fields) earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It specifies what metadata is returned, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or deeper context about index health interpretation. It meets minimum viability but has clear 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('current index health metadata'), listing the exact data points returned (status, last indexed time, file count, staleness). It distinguishes from siblings like 'index_workspace' or 'reindex_workspace' by focusing on status retrieval rather than indexing 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 usage for checking index health, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reindex_workspace' for fixing issues or 'semantic_search' for querying indexed content. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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