The server provides 11 tools with explicit schemas and descriptions visible in the source code. Most tools have adequate naming (verb_noun style) and non-empty descriptions. However, descriptions are frequently terse (20-40 chars), parameter documentation is minimal, output schemas are largely inferred rather than explicitly documented, and error handling guidance is absent. The server demonstrates careful attention to schema augmentation (cwd injection) and structured output in server.go, but individual tool implementations lack depth in descriptions and parameter validation. This is a typical C-tier community server: functional schema definitions but weak LLM-optimization and missing recovery guidance.

• Expand all tool descriptions from 1-sentence to 2-3 sentences with explicit WHAT/WHEN/WHY guidance. Target 50 - 150 characters. Example: 'create_directory' → 'Create a new directory at the specified path. Use this to organize project files or set up the directory structure for a workflow. Fails if parent path does not exist or permissions are insufficient.'
• Add explicit parameter descriptions to all input schemas. For jq/yq: 'query: A valid jq/yq expression. Use ".key" to extract a field, ".[] | select(.id == 5)" for filtering. Invalid syntax will return an error.' For grep_content: 'pattern: A POSIX regular expression. Use "^error" for lines starting with "error", "\d+" for digits.'
• Document output schemas explicitly in each tool definition. Include field names, types, and what each field represents. Example for read_files: 'Returns {"files": [{"path": string, "contents": string, "size_bytes": integer}], "cwd": string}'.
• Add error recovery guidance to descriptions. Example for run_command: 'If the command fails, the error message will describe the failure. Common issues: missing executable (check PATH), permission denied (check file permissions), timeout (increase timeout_seconds or optimize command).'
• Implement dry-run or confirmation for run_command and edit. Add a 'dry_run: boolean' parameter that shows what would happen without executing. For destructive operations, consider requiring explicit confirmation via a separate confirm_* tool.
• Document security constraints in run_command description: 'Executes shell code in the specified working directory. Sanitize all user-provided input to prevent command injection attacks. Do not pass untrusted user input directly into shell commands.'