Code Editor MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions three operations (create, list, delete), it doesn't explain important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether operations are atomic/reversible, what happens on conflicts, what the output looks like, or error handling. The parameter descriptions hint at some behaviors (like conflict detection for delete) but don't explain them fully.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with a clearer overall behavioral summary, but the information density is high with minimal waste.

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 (9 parameters, 3 distinct operations, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic operations and parameter dependencies adequately. However, for a multi-operation tool with destructive capabilities (delete), it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error conditions that aren't covered by the output schema alone.

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 9 parameters, the description does an excellent job adding semantic meaning. It clearly explains which parameters apply to which actions ('list only', 'required for delete'), provides enum values for action and format, and gives practical context like 'conflict detection' and 'normalized_path'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs 'Directory operations: create, list, or delete' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like file_ops (file operations) and read_file (read-only operations) by focusing on directories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_allowed_roots which also lists directories.

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 choose dir_ops over file_ops for directory operations, or when list_allowed_roots might be more appropriate. There's no discussion of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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