MCP Server

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. However, it gives no information about what the tool does (e.g., whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns specific outputs). The description is essentially empty, failing to meet even the minimal burden for a tool with no annotations.

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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. 'FileHandler tool description' is a placeholder that fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient. A truly concise description would front-load key details like purpose or usage, but this text lacks any substantive content to structure.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent. For a tool named 'file-handler' with siblings like 'data-processor', more context is needed to understand its role and functionality.

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 'message' documented as 'Message to process'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'process' entails or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'FileHandler tool description' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., read, write, delete, or manipulate files), what resources it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'data-processor' or 'api-client'. This provides no actionable information for an AI agent.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'data-processor' or 'api-client' that might handle related tasks. This leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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