ContextStream MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc., indicating safe, non-destructive operations. The description adds value by listing specific actions (create, snooze, complete, dismiss) which imply mutation capabilities, but this doesn't contradict annotations since annotations cover general behavior. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'complete' and 'dismiss' entail beyond the basic actions.

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 brief and front-loaded with 'Reminder management,' followed by a list of actions. It's efficient with no wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping actions by type). Overall, it's concise and to the point.

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 (14 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does at a high level but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how actions interact with parameters. With annotations handling safety, it's adequate but could benefit from more behavioral context.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond listing actions, which maps loosely to the 'action' parameter. No additional semantics are provided for other parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states 'Reminder management' which is a general purpose, then lists actions (list, active, create, snooze, complete, dismiss). This is somewhat vague as it doesn't specify what resource is being managed (reminders) or distinguish from sibling tools. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the domain or how it differs from other tools.

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. It lists actions but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'active' versus 'list' or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'memory' or 'project'.

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