mcp2term

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. While it mentions operations (create, edit, inspect), it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether these operations are destructive, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 21 parameters and file system 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Create, edit, and inspect' covers the main operations, 'files on the remote host' specifies the resource and context, and 'including line-based operations' adds important scope information without redundancy.

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 (21 parameters, file system operations), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address critical context: mutation implications, error conditions, permission requirements, or how the numerous parameters interact. For such a complex tool, the single-sentence description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 21 parameters, the description provides minimal parameter context. It mentions 'line-based operations' which hints at parameters like 'line', 'start_line', and 'end_line', but doesn't explain how these parameters interact or what other parameters like 'escape_profile' or 'anchor' mean. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Create, edit, and inspect files on the remote host including line-based operations.' It specifies the verb (create/edit/inspect), resource (files), and scope (remote host, line-based operations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_command or send_stdin, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like run_command for file operations. The phrase 'including line-based operations' hints at capabilities but doesn't establish clear usage boundaries.

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