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 but offers minimal information. It mentions 'using specified style guide' which hints at configuration needs, but doesn't describe what happens during formatting (e.g., does it modify files in-place, create backups, validate syntax first?), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a tool that modifies code files, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Format code') followed by the key constraint ('using specified style guide'), making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 code formatting tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'formatting' entails operationally, what happens to the original file, what success/failure looks like, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity of code transformation and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'specified style guide' which aligns with the 'style' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, required configurations, or practical usage examples. This meets the baseline expectation when schema documentation is comprehensive.

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 'Format code using specified style guide' clearly states the verb ('format') and resource ('code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_code' or 'suggest_refactoring' that might also involve code transformation, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific formatting operation is appropriate versus other code modification tools.

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. With siblings like 'modify_code', 'suggest_refactoring', and 'update_file' that could potentially overlap with code formatting scenarios, there's no indication of when format_code is the preferred choice or what specific problems it addresses that other tools don't.

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