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's purpose and returns 'Adjacent segment IDs,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more seamlessly into the flow.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values in more detail, leaving gaps for a tool with adjacency logic.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'base_segment_id: The anchor segment ID' and 'max_distance: Maximum distance from base (default: 1).' This clarifies parameter roles beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain constraints like valid ranges or formats.

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: 'Get list of segment IDs within proximity constraint.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('segment IDs'), and constraint ('within proximity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_segment' or 'validate_proximity,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance: 'Use for extraction queries that require adjacency.' This implies when to use it (for adjacency needs) but doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'search_segment' or 'validate_proximity'), leaving room for ambiguity.

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