mcp-file-oper

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'view' which implies a read operation, but does not specify whether it requires permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist, if there are size limits, or the format of the output. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with files.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of file operations (e.g., permissions, errors, output format) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover critical aspects like error handling, return values, or operational constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that the 'path' parameter refers to a text file location, which is not evident from the schema alone (0% coverage). However, it does not elaborate on path format (absolute/relative), supported file types beyond 'text', or encoding considerations. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some but incomplete compensation.

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 'View a text file at the specified path' clearly states the action (view) and resource (text file at path), making the purpose unambiguous. It's not a tautology of the name 'view_file' as it adds specificity about the resource type (text file) and location (path). However, with no sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives.

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, prerequisites, or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or limitations, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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