Desktop Commander 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. It does well by describing the edit mechanism ('replaces exact line sequences'), output format ('git-style diff'), and a key constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'). However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions needed, or whether edits are atomic/reversible, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by key behavioral details and constraints in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value: the edit mechanism, return format, and directory restriction. There's no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and constraints. It explains the edit process and output format, but lacks details on error cases, permissions, or what the diff output looks like structurally. Given the complexity, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 low (33%), with only 'dryRun' having a description. The description compensates by explaining the 'edits' parameter semantics ('Each edit replaces exact line sequences with new content') and implying 'path' is for the text file. It doesn't detail 'path' format or 'edits' array structure, but adds meaningful context beyond the sparse schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Make line-based edits', 'replaces exact line sequences') and resource ('to a text file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_file (which presumably writes entire files) and read_file (which only reads). It also mentions the return value ('Returns a git-style diff') which further clarifies its function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Make line-based edits to a text file') and includes an important constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'), which implicitly suggests using list_allowed_directories first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., write_file for full file overwrites), keeping it from a perfect score.

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