BigContext MCP

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. While it states the tool 'checks' permissions, it doesn't describe what happens during the check, whether it requires authentication, what error conditions might occur, or the format of the permission result. For a permission-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage guidance, documents parameters with examples, and describes the return value. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic context but lacks depth. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should better explain parameter meanings and behavioral aspects. For a permission-checking tool in this context, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some value by listing the three parameters and providing examples for 'operation' and 'language', but doesn't explain the meaning of 'document_id', valid operation types, or language codes. It partially compensates but leaves key parameter semantics unclear.

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: 'Check if a specific linguistic operation is allowed.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('linguistic operation'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on permission validation rather than analysis or detection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_permitted_operations' which might be a related sibling.

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: 'Use before performing morphological, etymological, or text-critical analysis.' This gives practical guidance about the tool's role in a workflow. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_permitted_operations' among the siblings.

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