XRootD MCP Server

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 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify what kind of statistics are returned (file counts, sizes, types, timestamps), whether there are permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that analyzes file systems, more behavioral context would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clearly states the core functionality upfront.

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 moderate complexity (file system analysis), absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps. It tells what the tool does at a high level but doesn't explain what 'comprehensive statistics' means in practice or what format the results take. For a tool without annotations or output schema, more detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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 both parameters ('path' and 'recursive') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive statistics about files in a directory', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_directory_size' or 'list_directory', but the focus on 'statistics' provides some distinction. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 multiple sibling tools that might overlap (like 'get_directory_size', 'list_directory', 'get_file_info'), there's no indication of when this statistical analysis is preferred over other directory/file operations. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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