AI FileSystem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but lacks critical details: whether the original file is preserved or overwritten, what happens if the output path isn't specified, whether encryption is reversible only with the same password, or any performance/security considerations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward operation and front-loads the core action.

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 file encryption tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, encrypted file path, error details), doesn't cover edge cases (e.g., invalid paths, weak passwords), and omits behavioral aspects like whether the operation is synchronous or has side effects on the original file.

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 parameters (path, password, algorithm, outputPath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying password-based encryption, which is already clear from parameter names. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('encrypt') and resource ('a file') with a specific method ('with a password'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'decrypt_file' beyond the obvious action difference, nor does it mention what happens to the original file or output format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compress_files' for size reduction or 'security_audit' for security checks. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or contextual factors like performance implications for large files.

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