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. While 'view' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, how versions are ordered (chronological/reverse), what happens when limit exceeds available versions, or whether the response includes metadata like timestamps/authors. For a historical retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 read-only historical retrieval tool with 3 well-documented parameters but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about return format, ordering, pagination, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavioral details from the tool name and parameter names alone.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain typical values for 'limit', clarify what 'include_plans' false returns instead, or provide examples. With complete schema documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('view') and resource ('version history for a plan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'list_plans' or 'load_plan' by focusing on historical versions rather than current state. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'compare_plan_versions' or 'rollback_plan', which are more closely related historical operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'view_history' over 'compare_plan_versions' (which likely compares specific versions) or 'rollback_plan' (which likely restores to a previous version). There's also no indication of prerequisites or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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