Shared Memory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get detailed information') without explaining what 'detailed information' entails, whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or how it behaves (e.g., error handling, rate limits). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, the format of the response, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its full 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('session_id' and 'section') with examples for 'section'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 the tool's purpose ('Get detailed information for a specific context section'), which is clear but vague. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('context section'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_context_delta' or 'get_worker_context', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when a session is active), or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools such as 'get_context_delta', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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