context.build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Bounded' hints at limits, but the description doesn't explain what bounds are applied, what side effects exist (if any), or whether it's a read or mutation. It doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or response structure. Minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, the second clause ('the MCP host decides how to use it') is not actionable for the agent and wastes the only available space. The key phrase is front-loaded, but the sentence lacks structure or elaboration.

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 19 parameters, no annotations, and only an opaque description, this is severely incomplete. The description does not explain what a 'secondary-context pack' is, how it relates to memory/skills, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot determine required inputs, constraints, or expected behavior. Even with an output schema, the description fails to provide minimal usage context.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what query, memory_id, max_items, or other 19 parameters control. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, making it impossible for an agent to correctly populate parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and a resource ('bounded secondary-context pack'), which is clear about the tool's primary function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like memory.read or session.write; 'secondary-context' is jargon that may not be self-explanatory to an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'the MCP host decides how to use it,' which shifts responsibility away from the agent and offers no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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