ContextStream MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the token savings percentages for different output formats (80%, 60%, 90%), describes what each mode does (e.g., 'semantic (meaning-based)', 'pattern (regex)'), and mentions team search limitations ('team plans only'). This provides useful operational context that annotations don't cover.

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 efficiently structured in two focused sentences: one covering search modes and one covering output formats. Every element serves a purpose - explaining mode types, their characteristics, and token savings. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters and options.

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?

For a search tool with 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the various search modes and output formats, which are critical for proper tool selection. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by detailing output format options. It could benefit from more sibling differentiation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics - it briefly mentions output formats and modes but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches 'workspace memory and knowledge', providing a specific verb ('Search') and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'context' or 'memory' which might also involve searching or retrieving information. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 implied usage guidance by recommending 'auto' mode as default and noting that 'hybrid' is a legacy alias. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives (e.g., when to use 'search' vs 'context' or 'memory' tools). The mode descriptions help but don't constitute comprehensive usage guidelines.

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