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. It states the action ('move or rename') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing files at the destination, what happens on failure (e.g., if source doesn't exist), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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 'Move or rename a file' is extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling) and does not explain return values or side effects. For a tool that modifies file systems, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it safely and effectively.

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 both parameters ('source' and 'destination') clearly documented in the schema as file paths. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining path formats or constraints (e.g., relative vs. absolute paths). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 'Move or rename a file' clearly states the verb ('move' or 'rename') and resource ('a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'update_file' or 'change_permissions', which might have overlapping functionality in some contexts, preventing a perfect 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 siblings like 'update_file' (which might modify content) and 'change_permissions' (which might alter access), there is no indication of when moving/renaming is appropriate, such as for reorganizing files versus editing them, leaving the agent to 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.