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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does a good job: it states 'Changes nothing,' clarifies that the command contains no token, and explains that bytes never pass through the conversation. It also reveals the clipboard-based token flow. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state the output format, though the return value is strongly implied to be a command string.

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 fairly long but every clause carries important information: what pm-files is, when to call the tool, what to do with the command, token safety, and side-effect freedom. It front-loads the purpose before the usage condition. A slightly tighter sentence structure would improve it, but there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter setup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what the tool is for, the trigger condition, the action the agent should take, and critical safety notes about tokens and side effects. The main omission is a direct statement of what the tool returns, though 'hand the person the command' implies the output well enough for practical use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately uses the space to explain context rather than inventing parameter-like details.

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 identifies this tool as the mechanism for connecting pm-files, a local MCP server for attaching files by path, and explains its role in giving the person a setup command. It also distinguishes itself by specifying the condition 'when pm-files is not among your tools,' which helps separate it from file- or connection-related siblings. It stops short of a crisp verb-noun statement like 'Returns setup instructions for pm-files,' so it isn't a 5.

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 explicitly states when to call it: whenever a local file is needed and pm-files is not already available. It also tells the agent exactly what to do with the result—hand the person the command with the workspace address embedded—and gives a clear exclusion by implying that if pm-files is already a tool, this call is unnecessary. Safety guidance about not asking for a token is also included.

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