Cross-Platform Filesystem MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what information is returned (metadata, permissions, size, etc.), whether it works for both files and directories equally, error conditions (e.g., non-existent paths), or performance characteristics. The description is too vague to guide the agent effectively.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get information about a file or directory'), making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with potential complexity. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a read operation in a filesystem context with many sibling tools, more detail is needed to help the agent use it correctly without trial and error.

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%, with the single parameter 'path' clearly documented in the schema as 'File or directory path'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify path format (absolute vs. relative), restrictions, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'read_file' (which reads content) or 'list_directory' (which lists contents), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_current_directory' or 'search_files' which might overlap in information retrieval.

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 siblings like 'list_directory' (for directory contents), 'search_files' (for finding files), and 'get_current_directory' (for current location), there's no indication whether this tool is for metadata retrieval, existence checking, or other specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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