Create Remote Directories

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral detail 'recursively,' implying creation of parent directories. This goes beyond the annotations and is useful for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning idempotency), but it is appropriately succinct.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of a complete input schema and output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks mention of error conditions or the effect on existing directories, but the idempotent annotation partially fills that gap.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('path' and 'sessionId'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 action ('creates') and the resource ('directories'), with the specific qualifier 'recursively' matching the tool name 'fs_mkdirp'. It is distinct from sibling tools like fs_read or fs_write, which do not create directories.

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 (e.g., fs_write for files, ensure_lines_in_file for file content). It does not mention prerequisites, such as an active SSH session, or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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