filesystem-mcp

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 states the action ('Read content') but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it reads files sequentially or in parallel, error handling for missing files, encoding assumptions, or output format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (reading multiple files), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., file contents, errors), how results are structured, or behavioral details like performance or limitations. For a tool with no structured output or safety hints, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the 'paths' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'Array of relative file paths to read.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read content') and resource ('from multiple specified files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' (metadata) and 'write_content' (writing), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'read_content' over 'search_files' (which might read content during searches) or 'stat_items' (which provides metadata without content). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for tool selection.

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