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 'deterministic preflight' and 'structured JSON output', which hint at reliability and output format, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'enterprise-grade' entails operationally. The description is insufficient for a tool with complex parameters and no annotations.

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, dense sentence with zero waste—every phrase ('enterprise-grade', 'diff-first', 'deterministic preflight', 'structured JSON output') adds specific meaning. It's front-loaded with key characteristics and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the review process, what 'preflight' entails, how findings are generated, or the meaning of 'Phase 2/3/4' references in the schema. For a sophisticated review tool with many configuration options, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 80%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'diff-first' which relates to the 'diff' parameter, and 'structured JSON output' hints at the result format, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context for the 20% gap. 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 performs 'review' (verb) on 'diff' (resource) with specific characteristics ('enterprise-grade', 'diff-first', 'deterministic preflight', 'structured JSON output'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'review_auto' or 'review_changes' by emphasizing the diff-first approach and structured output, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context through 'diff-first review' and 'deterministic preflight', suggesting this is for code review scenarios with diff content. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'review_auto' or 'review_changes', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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