storage_list_sidecars

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 implies read-only behavior by stating 'inspect local persistence,' but does not detail error handling, sidecar format, or the effect of the limit parameter. Adds some context but lacks thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and default behavior. It lacks explanation of the limit parameter, but output schema may compensate for return value details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the root parameter and its default behavior ('If root is omitted, the MCP process project root is used'), but does not mention the limit parameter or its semantics, leaving it undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the .mcp-ebook-read sidecar') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_cleanup_sidecars and storage_delete_document, which perform different actions.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'rediscover known documents after restart and inspect local persistence.' It also explains the default behavior for the root parameter, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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