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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is recursive (implied by maxDepth parameter but not stated), case-sensitive, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid path). It also doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of file paths, metadata) or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (critical for a search tool), error handling, recursion behavior, and usage context. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what's returned (e.g., 'returns matching file paths'), but it doesn't. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (path, pattern, maxDepth). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'name pattern' which aligns with the 'pattern' parameter but provides no extra details about wildcard syntax, format, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Search for files by name pattern' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (files) with a specific method (by name pattern). It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory (which lists without searching) and get_file_info (which retrieves metadata for a specific file). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the scope (e.g., recursive search) or differentiate from potential pattern-based alternatives.

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 prefer search_files over list_directory (for pattern matching vs. simple listing) or get_file_info (for finding specific files vs. retrieving metadata). There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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