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. 'Show commit logs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it requires Git repository access, outputs in a specific format (e.g., text, JSON), handles errors, or has any side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 with just three words ('Show commit logs'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool like this, such brevity is efficient and appropriate, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance without 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., commit details, formatting), error conditions, or prerequisites like needing a Git repository. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit' and 'path' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter 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 'Show commit logs' clearly states the verb ('show') and resource ('commit logs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'commit logs' include (e.g., commit messages, authors, dates) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'git_status' or 'git_commit', which are related but serve different purposes in Git workflows.

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 context such as reviewing history, debugging, or comparing with other Git tools like 'git_diff' or 'git_status'. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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