Six tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and error handling. All tools have descriptions (10-50 chars, below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM optimization). Input schemas present but sparse: most parameters lack detailed constraints, format specifications, or validation guidance. No output schemas documented. No error recovery guidance. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint). Naming is verb-first and clear (read_file, write_file, shell), but descriptions are minimal and do not explain when to use each tool or what happens on failure. Parameter descriptions are present but generic ('Path to the file to read' vs 'Absolute or relative path; max 4096 chars; must exist'). No pagination, no batch variants, no idempotency guarantees documented.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 chars. Example: 'Read the contents of a file. Use before editing to understand current state. Fails if file does not exist or is not readable. Returns raw file content as string.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., list_dir returns {files: string[], directories: string[], total: number}. search returns {matches: [{file: string, line: number, text: string}], total: number}.
• Add parameter constraints in descriptions. E.g., 'path: Absolute or relative file path (max 4096 chars, no null bytes). Must exist and be readable.' 'pattern: Valid regex pattern (PCRE syntax); max 1000 chars.'
• Add tool annotations: mark read_file, list_dir, search as readOnlyHint=true; mark write_file, edit_file, shell as destructiveHint=true; document idempotency (edit_file is idempotent if old_text matches exactly once).
• Add error recovery guidance. E.g., shell: 'If exit code is non-zero, the command failed. Check stderr output. Retryable if timeout; user-fixable if syntax error.' write_file: 'If EACCES, check directory permissions. If ENOSPC, disk is full.'