get_server_context

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 discloses that a file is created (.mcp-server-context.md) and that it represents server state, but does not mention side effects like file overwriting, permissions, or potential destructive behavior. The tool appears non-destructive, but the description could be more explicit.

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 concise sentences: the first defines the action and output, the second adds a practical use case (text file for @reference). No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and output format adequately. It lacks details on what 'comprehensive context' includes, but given the self-explanatory parameters and clear intent, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about the output file but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate a comprehensive context file' with specific details about server state, memory, and capabilities, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like get_conversation_snapshot or get_memory_stats.

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 providing LLM awareness via @reference, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools exist that cover similar functions (e.g., get_conversation_snapshot), but no comparative guidance is given.

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