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. It mentions 'select' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this loads the tree into memory, sets a default context, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational details needed 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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste: 'Select an existing file tree to work with'. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness may contribute to gaps in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'select' entails operationally, what happens after selection (e.g., sets context for other tools), or the return value. For a tool with one parameter and no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filename' documented as 'Name of the JSON file containing the file tree'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately defines the parameter.

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 'Select an existing file tree to work with' states a clear verb ('select') and resource ('file tree'), but it's vague about what 'select' means operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_file_tree' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't clarify how this differs from 'list_saved_trees' or other file-related tools.

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. The description implies it's for selecting an existing file tree, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have saved trees), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'list_saved_trees' or 'create_file_tree'.

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