fast-filesystem-mcp

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. While 'deletes' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether deletions are permanent, what permissions are required, error handling for non-existent files, or system-specific constraints. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - just four words that directly state the tool's function. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it immediately understandable without requiring cognitive load to parse.

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 destructive file operation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like the permanence of deletion, error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens with the 'backup_before_delete' and 'confirm_delete' safety parameters. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('deletes') and resource ('a file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like 'fast_move_file' or 'fast_safe_edit' that might also remove files in different ways, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 sibling tools like 'fast_safe_edit' or 'fast_move_file' that might handle file removal differently, there's no indication of when this destructive deletion is appropriate versus safer alternatives.

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