fs_op

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one specific rule (delete refuses a non-empty directory unless recursive=true) and a vague 'recursive where it makes sense,' but omits critical context: whether delete is permanent, what happens on overwrite (force), permission requirements, error modes, and return formats. For a tool performing destructive operations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph that efficiently packs scope, action list, and one behavioral note. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a 13-parameter tool, though minor structural improvements (e.g., separating the behavioral note) could enhance scannability.

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 complexity (12 actions, 13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers selection by stating scope and exclusions, and the schema covers parameter invocation. However, it lacks detail on what each action returns or how errors surface — gaps that could mislead an agent about output expectations.

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 each parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the list of actions and hash algorithms, which duplicates the enum values with no added syntax or format detail. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource (filesystem) and enumerates all supported operations, with an explicit exclusion: 'other than reading/writing content.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like file_read and file_write, giving an agent a precise sense of what the tool does and does not cover.

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 exclusion of reading/writing content implies that file_read and file_write should be used for those tasks, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided. The delete condition (needs recursive=true for non-empty dirs) is a behavioral rule, not usage routing. Overall, usage is implied rather than stated.

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