Convert a Windows path to its WSL-compatible format (C:\x becomes /mnt/c/x) for use in Linux commands.
Translate a Windows path to its WSL equivalent (C:\x → /mnt/c/x).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| windows_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the core transformation behavior and illustrates it with an example. It does not mention edge cases like UNC paths or invalid input, but for a simple path converter, the stated behavior is transparent.
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, focused sentence with an example that adds clarity without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core purpose.
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 one-parameter conversion utility with an output schema, the description is largely complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could benefit from an explicit pointer to the inverse tool, but the example and stated purpose cover the essential context.
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%, but the description's example `C:x` adds context by showing the expected Windows path format. However, the description does not explicitly document parameter constraints, accepted variations, or error conditions, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter description.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Translate a Windows path to its WSL equivalent'. The concrete example `C:\x` → `/mnt/c/x` removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from the inverse sibling `to_windows_path`.
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 intended use case is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over `to_windows_path` or any other alternative. The description is clear enough for a simple conversion, but it leaves the when-to-use decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.