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 but only states what the tool does ('run analyzers', 'return findings'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like execution environment (local), side effects (e.g., temporary files), error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., resource usage). The mention of 'structured findings' is vague without output schema.

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 core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (running multiple analyzers with configurable options), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'structured findings' entail, how errors are handled, or dependencies (e.g., needing tsc/semgrep installed). For a tool with behavioral nuance, more context 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 50% (2 parameters total, with detailed descriptions for nested options but not for 'changed_files'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already covers analyzers, timeouts, and limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate parameter documentation despite the coverage gap.

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 ('run', 'return') and resources ('local static analyzers', 'structured findings'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on static analysis rather than planning, reviewing, or file operations, and explicitly names the analyzers (tsc and semgrep).

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 static analysis tasks but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_invariants', 'validate_content', or 'review_changes'. It mentions 'optional semgrep' which hints at configurability but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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