suggest_namesAnalyzes files in folders and outputs a table with each file's date, issuer, document type, and suggested name, so you can review and organize documents.
For all files in folders: date, issuer, kind and a suggested name, one row each. Start here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool processes all files in folders and returns one row per file with specific columns (date, issuer, kind, suggested name), which is useful return-format context, but it does not disclose performance characteristics, recursion behavior, or error handling.
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 very short and contains no filler. It front-loads the output specification, though 'Start here' is a vague closing sentence that adds little. Overall it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, even if the structure could lead with the action.
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 batch tool with no output schema and a completely undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It lists output columns but omits essential context such as whether paths are folders or files, recursion behavior, file-type handling, and what happens on invalid paths.
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 0%, and the description never mentions the single 'paths' parameter. The phrase 'For all files in folders' weakly implies that paths refer to folders, but it does not explain format, whether files are accepted, or whether it recurses. The description does little to compensate for the missing schema 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 specifies that it operates 'For all files in folders' and returns 'date, issuer, kind and a suggested name, one row each,' which hints at a batch naming-suggestion tool. However, it never uses an action verb like 'suggests names' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'suggest_name' (singular), leaving the core purpose implied rather than stated.
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 only usage guidance is the vague phrase 'Start here,' which implies it should be run first but gives no context about when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives like 'suggest_name' or 'naming_examples.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.