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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — omitting version reads the latest attempted snapshot — but says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing a continuation_token, or about what happens when no snapshot exists.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and the key default. The trailing 'MCP version 2.12' is slightly redundant with the mcp_version schema field, but the overall text is tight.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the version default but omits return shape (what a 'stored source path' entry looks like) and pagination semantics. It is adequate but has clear gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description merely enumerates the optional parameters and restates the version default already present in the schema, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'find stored source paths for app_id'. The agent can tell it retrieves path listings, but the description doesn't distinguish it from siblings like src_grep or src_read, leaving the file-listing vs content-reading boundary to be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by the optional parameters (glob, path prefix, include_dirs) and the note that an omitted version reads the latest snapshot. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-src_grep/src_read guidance or precondition statement.

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