BigContext MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'detects' and 'identifies' patterns, implying a read-only analysis operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it's computationally intensive, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or how results are structured beyond 'Performative detection result.' For a detection tool with no 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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, pattern explanation, and parameter/return documentation. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the parameter and return sections could be slightly more integrated with the main description.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage but clarified in description, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need description), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a detection tool with no annotations and many sibling alternatives, it lacks context about performance characteristics, error handling, or integration with other tools. The description covers basics but leaves operational 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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'segment_id' as 'ID of the segment to analyze.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type information. With only one parameter, the description adequately clarifies its purpose, though it doesn't specify format constraints or valid ranges.

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: detecting performative speech acts where divine speech is the creative act, specifically identifying 'And God said... and it was so' patterns. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on performative speech acts rather than other analysis types like detecting divine agency without speech or checking anachronisms. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'detect_narrative_voice' or 'identify_speaker'.

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. With many sibling tools for text analysis (e.g., detect_divine_agency_without_speech, detect_narrative_voice, detect_semantic_frames), there's no indication of when performative speech detection is appropriate versus other detection methods. The description mentions the tool 'resists causal analysis' but doesn't explain what analytical context makes this tool preferable.

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