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 key traits: efficiency gains, partial failure tolerance ('Failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation'), and access restrictions ('Only works within allowed directories'). It doesn't cover rate limits or detailed error handling, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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, followed by efficiency rationale, output format hint, failure behavior, and access constraint—all in four concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits (partial failures, restrictions), and efficiency. It lacks details on return format (beyond 'content is returned with its path') and error specifics, but for a read operation with one parameter, it's largely complete and helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't explicitly explain the 'paths' parameter beyond implying it's an array of file paths. It adds minimal semantic value (e.g., no format details or constraints), so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap. With one parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description hints at usage without detailed param info.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of multiple files'), specifying it's for simultaneous reading. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file' by emphasizing batch efficiency and partial failure tolerance, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool ('more efficient than reading files one by one when you need to analyze or compare multiple files') and mentions a constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'read_file' for single files, which would elevate it to a 5.

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