get_server_context

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

The description claims the tool creates a file, implying a write operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This direct contradiction obscures the tool's actual side effects, severely impacting transparency.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured, immediately conveying the primary action and output without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

While the purpose and output are clear, the lack of detail on parameter behavior and the contradiction with readOnlyHint leave gaps in understanding. The description does not explain the impact of different parameter values or potential side effects.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions, providing 100% schema coverage. However, the descriptions are generic and largely restate the parameter names, offering little additional semantic value beyond what the schema already implies.

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: generating a comprehensive context file of the server's state, memory, and capabilities. It also specifies the exact output file name and its utility for LLM awareness.

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?

It explicitly mentions that the generated file can be @ referenced in conversations, giving a concrete use case. However, it does not compare with alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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