FileScopeMCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action ('List all files') and adds key detail ('with their importance rankings'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context on behavior, output format, or usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully handles the lack of inputs.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'files in the project', specifying they come with 'importance rankings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_important_files' (which likely filters) and 'debug_list_all_files' (which may include debug info), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_saved_trees' (which lists trees, not files), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 'find_important_files' (for filtered results) or 'debug_list_all_files' (for detailed output). The description implies it lists all files, but doesn't specify contexts like initial exploration or when importance data is needed, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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