Context Engine MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It details what gets indexed (50+ file types with examples), what's excluded (generated code, dependencies, etc.), where the index is saved (.augment-context-state.json), persistence behavior (automatically restored), and operational characteristics (background option, force re-indexing).

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, usage guidelines, inclusions, exclusions, storage details) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, some sentences in the exclusion list could be more concise, but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral details (indexing scope, exclusions, storage, persistence), and parameter implications, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by implicitly explaining the 'force' parameter context (re-indexing when index exists) and explicitly mentioning the 'background' option's effect ('non-blocking'), though it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('scans all source files', 'builds a semantic index') and resource ('workspace'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'semantic_search' (which uses the index) and 'clear_index' (which removes it). It explicitly defines what indexing means in this context.

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 includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section with three specific scenarios (first-time use, after significant changes, when search returns no results), providing clear guidance on when to invoke it versus relying on existing index or other tools like 'semantic_search'.

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