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. It mentions 'auto-chunking, line numbers, and context' which gives some behavioral insight, but fails to describe important aspects like performance characteristics, memory usage, error handling, pagination behavior (implied by continuation_token), or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 complexity (10 parameters, search functionality), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search results look like, how matches are presented, what 'auto-chunking' entails, or important behavioral constraints. For a code search tool with rich parameterization, more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'auto-chunking' which relates to the auto_chunk parameter, and 'context' which relates to context_lines, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as searching for code with ripgrep-style functionality, specifying key features like auto-chunking, line numbers, and context. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'fast_search_files' by focusing specifically on code search rather than general file search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other code-related tools if they exist.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'fast_search_code' over 'fast_search_files' or other search-related siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites, ideal use cases, or limitations beyond what's implied by the name.

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