FileScopeMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like file size limits, encoding handling, error conditions (e.g., missing files), or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, binary data, structured content) or address potential complexities like large files or permission issues. Given the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.

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, with the 'filepath' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read') and resource ('content of a specific file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' (which lists files) or 'get_file_summary' (which provides summaries), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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. With siblings like 'get_file_summary' or 'list_files', there's no indication whether this tool should be preferred for raw content retrieval or if it has specific use cases compared to other file-related tools.

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