mcp_engram_var_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions modes and context extension, but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, any security or rate limit implications, or whether modifications are possible. Some behavioral context is given but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The key information (purpose, modes, benefit) is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how modes differ in output. It is adequate but not thorough for a query tool.

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 description adds meaning to the 'mode' parameter by listing its options and hints at the purpose of the tool (context extension), but does not explain 'preview_chars' beyond its default. Schema coverage is low (33%), and the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 queries var:* handles with multiple modes (metadata, preview, relations, slots). It distinguishes from read_concept by noting it extends context window without reading every bound concept. However, it could more precisely define what a var handle is.

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 implies usage for querying var handles efficiently ('extends context window without read_concept on every bound concept'), but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to sibling tools like mcp_engram_read_concept.

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