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. It discloses that results are 'ranked by relevance' which is valuable behavioral information beyond basic search functionality. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like pagination behavior (only limit parameter), whether the search is case-sensitive, what fields are searched, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences that each add value: purpose statement, usage guidance, and behavioral detail about ranking. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose, usage context, and ranking behavior. For a search tool with 2 parameters and good schema coverage, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral details about search scope and limitations.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'Full-text search' which implies the query parameter usage, but this is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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's purpose with 'Full-text search across artifacts' - a specific verb (search) and resource (artifacts). It distinguishes from siblings like create_artifact or update_artifact by focusing on search rather than creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_artifacts_for_task_context which might also retrieve artifacts.

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 clear usage guidance with 'Use this before creating new artifacts to avoid duplicates' - this gives a specific when-to-use context. It implies an alternative (create_artifact) but doesn't explicitly name it or provide when-not-to-use guidance for other siblings like get_artifacts_for_task_context.

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