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. While it states what the tool detects, it doesn't describe how it behaves: no mention of output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens when secrets are found. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that communicates the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly, but it's already quite compact and focused.

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 security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how findings are reported, whether it's read-only or modifies files, or any performance/limitation considerations. The agent would need to guess about critical behavioral aspects when invoking this tool.

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 fully documents the single 'directory' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the specific action ('scan directory') and target resources ('hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords, and sensitive data'), with explicit examples ('AWS keys, tokens, credentials'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'security_audit' or 'search_content' by focusing specifically on secret detection rather than general security or content searching.

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 like 'security_audit' or 'search_content'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage context from the purpose alone without explicit direction.

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