BigContext MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves permitted operations based on genre, but lacks critical behavioral details: what permissions or authentication are required, whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the segment_id is invalid, or if there are rate limits. The description is too vague about the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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, context about genres, and parameter/return notes. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative 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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description fails to provide genre examples, operation types, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, more context about inputs and behavior would improve completeness.

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 only mentions 'segment_id: ID of the segment to check' in the Args section, which repeats the parameter name without adding meaningful semantics. It doesn't explain what a segment is, how IDs are structured, or provide examples. This leaves the single parameter poorly documented.

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 permitted cognitive operations based on text genre.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('permitted cognitive operations'), and key factor ('based on text genre'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_text_genre' or 'check_language_operation', which appear related to genre and operations analysis.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions that different genres allow different operations, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before or after 'detect_text_genre', or how it differs from 'audit_cognitive_operations'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references are provided.

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