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. 'Modify code' implies mutation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether modifications are destructive or reversible, what happens on errors, whether the tool validates syntax, what permissions are required, or what the output looks like. The AST approach is mentioned but not explained in terms of behavior.

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 appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point about what the tool does technically.

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 code modification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address the mutation nature, error handling, validation, or return values. Given the complexity of AST transformations and the potential for destructive changes, more behavioral context is needed to make this tool usable by an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'path' and 'modifications', provide examples of AST transformations, or clarify how different modification types interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Modify code using AST transformations' clearly states the action (modify) and resource (code) with a specific technical approach (AST transformations). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_file' which likely does raw file modifications, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'format_code' or 'suggest_refactoring' which might also involve code changes.

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. There's no mention of when AST-based modification is preferable to simpler file updates, no prerequisites for using AST transformations, and no comparison to siblings like 'update_file', 'format_code', or 'suggest_refactoring' that might handle similar code modification tasks differently.

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