Shared Memory MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get incremental updates' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'updates' (e.g., context changes, discoveries, work units), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the updates are returned in. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the core functionality.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'incremental updates' consist of, how they're structured, what happens if 'since_version' is invalid, or what the return format is. Given the sibling tools suggest this is part of a session/worker system, more context about the update content is needed.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'since a specific version' which aligns with the 'since_version' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 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 action ('Get incremental updates') and the scope ('since a specific version'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_discoveries_since' or 'get_worker_context', which appear to have similar incremental retrieval patterns.

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 like 'get_discoveries_since' or 'get_worker_context'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation from sibling tools.

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