@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'free read' which hints at no cost and read-only nature, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema parameters), error conditions, or what 'storage' specifically refers to. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with storage systems.

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 extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the core purpose ('List files in storage') with a brief qualifier ('free read'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information efficiently.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that lists files (which often involves pagination, filtering, and return formats), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., file metadata list), error handling, or storage context specifics. The 'free read' hint is insufficient for full agent understanding.

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 fully documents all three parameters (prefix, limit, cursor). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering via 'list files', which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('files in storage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling storage tools like 'deva_storage_file_delete' or 'deva_storage_file_upload' by specifying it's a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deva_storage_kv_list' which also lists storage items, missing full sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance with '(free read)', implying this is a read-only operation without cost, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. There's no mention of when to use this versus other listing tools like 'deva_storage_kv_list' or filtering options, leaving usage context largely implied.

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