Context Engine MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool does (detects and masks secrets), lists specific secret types, and mentions the masking approach (showing start/end characters). However, it doesn't disclose performance characteristics, error handling, or what happens when no secrets are found. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 efficiently structured with clear front-loading of the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second details secret types, and the third provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information. The bulleted list is appropriately used for the secret types.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. It covers the main functionality and use case well. However, it doesn't describe the output format or what happens when secrets are found/masked, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions masking behavior generally but doesn't explain how the show_start/show_end parameters affect the masking output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('scrub secrets', 'detects and masks') and identifies the resource ('content'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on secret detection/masking rather than memory management, code analysis, or planning functions. The description explicitly lists 15+ types of secrets with concrete examples.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'before including user content in prompts.' This gives clear context for application and distinguishes it from validation or analysis tools. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, it provides a clear use case that implies when other tools would be more appropriate.

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