AI FileSystem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('compress into an archive') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (e.g., whether original files are preserved), mention permission requirements, indicate error handling, or describe output behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters and 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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every element earns its place by clearly communicating the essential function.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context needed for a mutation tool (e.g., side effects, error cases). For a tool that modifies file systems, more disclosure about safety and outcomes would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'files' and 'outputPath' usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context like format trade-offs.

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 ('compress') and resource ('files or directories'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_archive' by focusing on compression rather than extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file manipulation tools like 'batch_operations' or 'move_file' beyond the core action.

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 prerequisites like file existence, compare to similar tools (e.g., 'batch_operations' for multiple file tasks), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for single-file operations where simpler tools might suffice). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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