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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions output details ('Shows file stats, entry counts, and content preview for each memory category'), which adds some value, but fails to address critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and output format. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the second sentence could be integrated more seamlessly. No wasted words, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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 (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context (pagination, limits) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly.

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%, with the single parameter ('category') fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by category' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'List all stored memories' with optional filtering by category. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('stored memories'), and scope ('all'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'semantic_search' or 'view_history' which might also retrieve memory-related data.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions optional filtering by category but offers no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search' for content-based retrieval or 'view_history' for chronological data. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are provided.

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