MCP Server Framework

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. It adds useful context about the MCP_ALLOWED_PATHS requirement, which isn't obvious from the schema. However, it lacks details on potential errors, performance characteristics, or what specific information is returned (though an output schema exists), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by prerequisites and parameter/return explanations. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Minor improvements could include briefer phrasing, but it's efficient overall.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, so the description focuses on necessary context without redundancy.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'path: Path to get info about.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths, supported file systems), which could enhance usability further.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get information about a file or directory.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file or directory'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_file', which prevents 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 some usage context by stating 'Requires MCP_ALLOWED_PATHS to be configured with permitted directories,' which implies a prerequisite. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directory' or 'read_file' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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