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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it generates diagrams (a read-only visualization operation), specifies the output format (Mermaid diagram code), and lists the diagram types. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it modifies data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage context and a bulleted list of diagram types, ending with output details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, diagram types, and output format. However, it lacks details on error cases or example outputs, which could enhance completeness for a visualization tool with no output schema.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning diagram types (which match the enum) and implying the plan parameter is required, but it does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for 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 with a specific verb ('generate diagrams') and resource ('from an implementation plan'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_plans, create_plan, or execute_plan. It explicitly mentions what the tool produces (diagrams) and the source material (implementation plan), making its function unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to visualize the plan's structure in different ways') and lists the specific diagram types available. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., view_progress might show progress differently), which prevents a perfect score.

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