Personal Context 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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the action is immediate, it blocks data access, and requires verify_otp for re-access. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, preventing a perfect score.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and effect, the second explains the consequence and alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.

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 complexity (a security action with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavior, but lacks details on response format or error handling, which could be useful for an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 ('immediately lock') and target resource ('current OTP session'), distinguishing it from siblings like disable_otp, verify_otp, and otp_status. It explicitly mentions the effect ('block access to encrypted personal data'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 context for when to use this tool: to lock the OTP session and block data access. It mentions the alternative verify_otp for re-verification, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. disable_otp for permanent deactivation) or other exclusions, keeping it at a 4.

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