Christensen 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 describes the structured output format and analytical approach but lacks details about computational requirements, processing time, rate limits, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete for a complex analytical 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, methodology, output format, and usage guidelines. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though some sentences could be more direct. Every section adds value without redundancy.

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 complex analytical tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks details about the analysis process, limitations, or what constitutes a valid 'decision' input. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

With 60% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions frameworks but doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples of valid inputs. The baseline score reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 as analyzing business decisions using specific Clayton Christensen frameworks (Jobs-to-Be-Done, Disruption Theory, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'case_study' and 'get_framework' by focusing on strategic analysis rather than retrieving case studies or framework definitions.

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, listing five specific strategic decision scenarios (market entry, product development, competitive positioning, etc.). This gives clear context for when this analysis tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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