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 behavioral traits: recursive search through subdirectories, case-insensitive partial matching, returns full paths, and the constraint of searching only within allowed directories. It doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the essential operational behavior well.

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 efficiently structured with 4 sentences, each adding distinct value: the core functionality, search behavior, return value, use case, and constraint. No sentence is redundant or wasted. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well to explain the recursive pattern matching behavior and constraints. It could benefit from mentioning the excludePatterns parameter or providing examples of pattern syntax, but covers the essential operational context adequately given the complexity.

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 3 parameters, the description adds significant value by explaining the pattern matching behavior ('case-insensitive and matches partial names'), recursive nature ('searches through all subdirectories'), and starting point ('from the starting path'). While it doesn't explicitly name each parameter, it provides crucial context about how the pattern and path parameters work together.

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 ('recursively search for files and directories') and resources ('files and directories matching a pattern'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory (non-recursive listing) or get_file_info (single file metadata). It explicitly mentions the recursive nature and pattern matching, which differentiates it from simpler listing tools.

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 about when to use this tool ('Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location') and constraints ('Only searches within allowed directories'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage vs. list_directory (which doesn't search recursively) but doesn't state this directly.

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