claude-session-continuity-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's read-only (safety context), uses FTS5 and embedding-based search (technical implementation), returns matched solutions with fix descriptions and related files (output format), and has a default limit of 3 results. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 with zero waste: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains key parameter functionality, the third provides behavioral context (read-only and returns), and the fourth gives explicit alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with essential information.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, key behaviors, and parameter context. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so return values aren't fully detailed beyond 'matched solutions with their fix descriptions and related files.' However, for a search tool with good parameter documentation, this is reasonably sufficient.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context: it explains that 'semantic=true' enables embedding-based similarity search for better recall, and implies 'query' matches against error signatures/messages/keywords. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the specific action ('Search the solution archive for previously resolved errors') and resource ('solution archive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like solution_suggest by specifying it's for searching archived solutions rather than AI-powered recommendations. It explicitly mentions what it matches against (error signatures, messages, keywords) and the search technology (FTS5).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use solution_suggest instead if you want AI-powered fix recommendations.' It also indicates when to enable semantic search ('Set semantic=true to enable embedding-based similarity search for better recall across different error phrasings'), giving clear context for parameter usage.

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