naming_examplesRetrieves examples of how a person previously named files in a specified area so an AI can match their existing naming style.
How the person named files before – match this style.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "naming_examplesOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool surfaces historical naming behavior for style matching, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose return format, how many examples are provided, or whether the examples are scoped to the required 'area' parameter.
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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its fragmentary style ('How the person named files before – match this style') sacrifices clarity for brevity, and the core behavioral detail is underspecified rather than concisely communicated.
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 one required, undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not explain what 'area' means, what the tool returns, or how its output should be used alongside siblings like suggest_name or get_rules. It provides only a high-level hint about historical naming style, which is insufficient for reliable 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?
The sole required parameter, 'area', has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention or explain it at all. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate by clarifying what 'area' means and how it affects the examples returned, but it provides no parameter semantics whatsoever.
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 restates the tool name with a vague phrase, 'How the person named files before,' and does not specify what the tool actually returns (e.g., a list of prior filenames) or what action it performs. It gives a hint about style matching but lacks a clear verb and resource scope, leaving it indistinguishable in purpose from siblings like suggest_name or get_rules without inference.
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 phrase 'match this style' implies a use case for naming files consistently with prior behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as suggest_name or get_rules. The agent must infer both the trigger and the relationship to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.