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 mentions the algorithm type ('fuzzy matching') and what it handles ('typos or partial matches'), but doesn't describe performance characteristics, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key capability. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (file paths? metadata?), doesn't mention performance implications, and doesn't provide guidance on threshold selection or when to use extensions filtering. For a search tool with multiple configuration options, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 purpose: 'Search for files using fuzzy matching algorithm' with the specific verb 'search' and resource 'files'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_files' and 'search_content' by specifying the fuzzy matching approach. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 implies when to use this tool ('Finds files with similar names even with typos or partial matches'), suggesting it's for approximate matching rather than exact searches. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'search_files' or 'semantic_search', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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