fast-filesystem-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Extracts an archive file' implies a read/write operation that modifies the filesystem, but it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's destructive (overwrites files), performance characteristics ('fast' in name suggests speed), or error handling. The description lacks critical behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the purpose statement.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what archive formats are supported, what happens on success/failure, whether extraction is recursive, or how it differs from other extraction methods. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the basic action. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'overwrite' interacts with 'preserve_permissions') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Extracts an archive file' clearly states the verb (extracts) and resource (archive file), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives or provide any nuance about what 'extract' entails beyond the literal meaning. It's adequate but vague about scope and capabilities.

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_compress_files' and various file operation tools, there's no indication whether this is for specific archive formats, performance characteristics, or preferred use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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