Windows CLI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (retrieving truncated output) and mentions the executionId source, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when parameters conflict. The examples help but don't cover edge cases.

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?

Perfectly structured: purpose statement first, usage guidance second, parameter explanations third, and practical examples last. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The examples are appropriately placed after parameter explanations.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining purpose, usage context, and parameters with examples. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of the output, error responses) or mention limitations like maximum retrievable lines beyond the config value. The examples partially compensate but don't cover all contextual needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the executionId's origin ('from the truncation message'), clarifying line numbering as '1-based', and providing concrete examples that show parameter usage patterns. However, it doesn't explain interactions between parameters (e.g., how search interacts with line ranges).

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 with specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('full output from a previous command execution'). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_command (which runs commands) and get_config (which retrieves configuration).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when command output was truncated and you need to see the complete result') and provides context about where to find the required parameter ('executionId is provided in the truncation message of the original command'). This clearly differentiates it from execute_command which creates new executions.

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