AI FileSystem MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Commit changes to git' implies a write operation that modifies the repository, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it requires staged changes, what happens if files are specified vs. omitted, error conditions, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Commit changes to git'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a git commit operation (a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., staged changes), behavioral details (e.g., partial commits with 'files'), error handling, and output. For a tool that modifies repository state, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent 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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (message, files, path). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'files' interacts with staging, default behaviors, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Commit changes to git' clearly states the verb ('commit') and resource ('changes to git'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like git_add, git_push, or git_log by focusing specifically on the commit operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it could be more specific about what 'changes' means compared to git_status).

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., needing staged changes via git_add), when not to use it (e.g., if no changes are staged), or how it relates to sibling tools like git_add, git_push, or git_status. 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.