AI FileSystem MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions updating remote refs, implying a write operation, but does not cover critical aspects like potential data loss with force pushes, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with zero waste or 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 (a mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, output expectations, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent invocation.

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, documenting all parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., force and setUpstream). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 'Update remote refs along with associated objects' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('remote refs'), indicating it pushes changes to a remote repository. It distinguishes from siblings like git_commit or git_pull by focusing on remote updates, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like github_create_pr, which is a more specific operation.

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, such as git_pull for fetching changes or github_create_pr for pull requests. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing commits ready) or exclusions, leaving usage implied but not explicit.

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