AI FileSystem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get git repository status' implies a read operation but doesn't specify what status information is returned (staged changes, untracked files, branch status, etc.), whether it requires git repository initialization, or what happens with invalid paths. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise at just four words ('Get git repository status'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 git status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status' encompasses (working directory state, staging area, branch information), what format the output takes, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of git status information and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what the tool actually returns.

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 the single parameter 'path' clearly documented as 'Repository path (defaults to current directory).' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get git repository status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('git repository status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_log' or 'git_branch' that also retrieve git information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 many sibling git tools available (git_log, git_branch, git_commit, etc.), there's no indication of what specific status information this provides or when it's the appropriate choice over other git operations.

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