System Information 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. It mentions the tool finds files based on size but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, output format, error handling, or performance implications (e.g., scanning large directories). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, clearly front-loading the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters, 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 (file system operation with filtering), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output expectations, or usage context, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'minSizeMB' has a description). The description adds minimal value by implying 'minSizeMB' is the specified size but doesn't clarify 'directoryPath' or provide additional context like path format, recursion behavior, or size unit details. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('files'), specifying the filtering criteria ('larger than a specified size in MB'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'list_directory', which might offer similar functionality with different scopes or parameters.

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 like 'search_files' or 'list_directory', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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