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 but lacks behavioral details. It states it 'Adds' a directory, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, whether duplicates are handled, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it adequate but with gaps for a whitelist modification tool.

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 meaningful semantics: it specifies that 'root_path' must be an 'Absolute path to an existing directory,' clarifying format and constraints. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail validation rules or error cases.

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 ('Add') and the target ('directory to the allowed whitelist'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_allowed_roots' or 'dir_ops', which would require mentioning it's specifically for modifying the whitelist rather than listing or general directory operations.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for removing paths), or refer to siblings like 'list_allowed_roots' for checking current whitelist, leaving usage context unclear.

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