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 but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no mention of error handling (e.g., invalid archive formats), permissions required, whether extraction is atomic or incremental, or what happens on failure. For a tool that modifies the filesystem, this lack of transparency is significant.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action ('extract files from an archive'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity (filesystem mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like supported archive formats, error conditions, security implications, or output behavior. For a tool that could destructively overwrite files, this leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 four parameters (archivePath, outputPath, filter, overwrite) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('extract files') and target resource ('from an archive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compress_files' by focusing on extraction rather than compression. However, it doesn't specify what types of archives are supported (e.g., zip, tar, rar), which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., archive must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for encrypted archives if unsupported), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'decrypt_file' or 'compress_files'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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