Windows CLI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is conditional ('only available when restrictWorkingDirectory is enabled') and describes validation modes, but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if validation fails. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a security/validation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections and a code example, but could be more concise. The first sentence is front-loaded with key information, but the shell-specific validation explanation is somewhat redundant with the schema's enum description.

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 validation tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's availability condition and validation modes, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how results should be interpreted given the security context.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'shell' enables shell-specific validation and provides a JSON example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or validation logic in depth.

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: 'Check if directories are within allowed paths' with the specific verb 'check' and resource 'directories'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on validation rather than execution, configuration retrieval, or directory navigation.

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 provides clear context: 'only available when restrictWorkingDirectory is enabled' and explains two validation modes (global vs. shell-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_command or set_current_directory, which might also involve directory validation.

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