Christensen MCP Server

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 what the tool returns (framework information with varying detail levels) but does not cover aspects like error handling, response format, or any limitations (e.g., data freshness, access restrictions). It adds useful context on available options but misses broader behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured lists of frameworks and detail levels. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear options, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 (2 parameters with enums) and no output schema or annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only informational tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of parameter options: it clarifies what each framework acronym stands for (e.g., 'jtbd: Jobs-to-Be-Done theory') and defines the meaning of detail levels (e.g., 'summary: Core concepts and when to use'). This goes beyond the schema's enum lists, enhancing understanding of parameter choices.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Get information about Christensen's strategic frameworks,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (analyze_decision, case_study) by focusing on retrieving framework information rather than analysis or case studies, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 implied usage guidance by listing available frameworks and detail levels, suggesting when to use specific options. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like analyze_decision or case_study, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the context somewhat incomplete.

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