NOUZ 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 of behavioral disclosure but offers almost no details regarding whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns direct children only or includes nested descendants, or what the return format looks like. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but lacks specifics about error handling when paths don't exist or whether the tool follows symbolic links.

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 consists of only three words, making it appropriately brief for a simple tool structure, though it suffers from under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase is front-loaded at the start, but fails to earn its place by conveying sufficient actionable information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, combined with the presence of functionally similar siblings like `list_files`, `get_parents`, and `read_file`, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the hierarchical relationship concept, the distinction between listing and getting children, or what differentiates this operation from simply listing files in a directory.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'path' parameter, and the description fails to compensate by explaining expected path formats (absolute vs relative), whether directories or file paths are expected, or validation constraints. While the description implies a location is needed to retrieve children, it provides no semantic meaning, examples, or constraints for the parameter itself.

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 'Get child files' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_children' with minimal variation, merely replacing 'get' with 'Get' and 'children' with 'child files'. While it identifies the resource type as files, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like `list_files` or clarify what constitutes a 'child' (direct vs recursive) in this filesystem context.

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 such as `list_files` (which also lists files) or `get_parents` (the inverse operation), nor does it specify prerequisites like path format requirements or necessary permissions. There is no mention of when not to use the tool or what conditions would make it appropriate versus reading a specific file.

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