FileScopeMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'most important files' but doesn't explain how importance is determined (e.g., based on scores from other tools like 'get_file_importance'), what the output format is, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.

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 (involves ranking or filtering based on importance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how importance is defined, what the output includes (e.g., file names, scores), or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'get_file_importance'. More context is needed for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'limit' and 'minImportance' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying importance-based filtering, which aligns with 'minImportance' but doesn't elaborate further. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Find the most important files') with a specific verb and resource, but it's vague about what constitutes 'important' and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_file_importance' or 'list_files'. It provides basic direction but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file_importance' (which might retrieve importance scores) or 'list_files' (which might list all files). The description implies a ranking or filtering based on importance, but it doesn't specify contexts or exclusions.

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