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 effectively describes the tool's read-only nature and scope constraint ('without reading the actual content', 'Only works within allowed directories'), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 supporting details, and uses only three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second elaborates on returns, and the third provides usage context and constraints, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage, and constraints adequately. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'comprehensive information' includes beyond listed examples) and error cases, which would be helpful for an agent. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'path' parameter, but implies it through context ('about a file or directory', 'within allowed directories'), adding semantic meaning about what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify format or constraints for the path, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap, warranting a score just above baseline.

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 specific action ('Retrieve detailed metadata'), resource ('about a file or directory'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it provides metadata 'without reading the actual content', unlike read_file or read_text_file which access content directly. This precise differentiation makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 ('perfect for understanding file characteristics without reading the actual content') and mentions a constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it compared to similar tools like list_directory or search_files, leaving some ambiguity.

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