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. It discloses the batch nature and encoding behavior, but lacks information about permissions needed, file size limits, error handling beyond the 'error' field, or performance characteristics. The return format is documented, which helps, but behavioral context is incomplete.

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, parameter explanations, and return format details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and detailed output.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is fairly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and the core behavior, though could benefit from more contextual guidance on usage scenarios and limitations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'file_paths' as absolute paths in a list, and 'encoding' with auto-detection and specific codec options. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 reads multiple files in a single call, specifying the verb 'read' and resource 'files'. It distinguishes from sibling 'read_file' by indicating batch capability, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other file-related siblings like 'file_ops' or 'edit_block'.

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 implies usage for reading multiple files simultaneously, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'read_file' for single files or other file manipulation tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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