IT Tools MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, but this is misleading since 'tail' is typically a read-only operation that doesn't modify files. The description doesn't clarify this contradiction or add any behavioral context about what 'display' means (e.g., output format, whether it streams continuously, error 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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple utility tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 simple file viewing tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'display' means in practice (output format, behavior with non-existent files, etc.) and doesn't address the annotation contradiction.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('file' path and 'lines' count with default 10). The description adds no additional semantic context about parameter usage, expectations, or edge cases beyond what's in the schema.

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 'Display the end of a file' clearly states the verb ('display') and resource ('end of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'head' which displays the beginning of a file, though the distinction is implied by the tool name 'tail'.

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 'head' or 'cat'. There's no mention of typical use cases (e.g., monitoring log files, checking recent entries) or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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