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 explains what the tool validates (executed vs. referenced actions) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the validation result entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, starting with the core purpose and key distinction, followed by examples and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the biblical references could be slightly verbose; overall, it is 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 complexity (validating divine actions), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, distinction, and parameters, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but more context on tool 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 adds meaning by explaining 'segment_id' as the ID of the segment to analyze and 'divine_agent_patterns' as optional patterns to identify divine agents, which clarifies their roles beyond the schema's basic types. However, it does not detail format or examples for these parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to validate whether a divine action is executed in-scene versus merely referenced. It provides specific examples (Judges 6:21 for executed, Nehemiah 9:12 for referenced) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'detect_divine_agency_without_speech' or 'validate_claim' by focusing on the execution vs. reference distinction.

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 implies usage by explaining the key distinction between executed and referenced actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detect_divine_agency_without_speech' or 'validate_claim'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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