Task Context MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying constraints (English only, character limits, no PII, focus on WHAT/WHY) and artifact types. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a creation tool.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidelines, constraints, and types - all in 7 concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, second gives usage timing, third addresses alternatives, fourth lists constraints, and fifth explains types. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, detailed usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, and parameter context. It's complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about parameter constraints (English only, character limits) and explains artifact_type values, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'artifact' with specific purpose 'to capture reusable guidance.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning when to use search_artifacts() first and prefer update_artifact() over near-duplicates, showing clear differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Create immediately when you discover a pattern, constraint, mistake, or useful template.' Also gives when-not-to-use alternatives: 'If similar guidance might already exist, call search_artifacts() first; prefer update_artifact() over near-duplicates.' This directly addresses sibling tool relationships.

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