15 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and output structure. Most tools have 1-2 parameters with minimal descriptions (e.g., 'Path to the file'). No output schemas documented. Error handling returns plain strings rather than structured guidance. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (read_file, write_file, list_dir) which is good, but descriptions are generic and lack context about when to use each tool or what the LLM should expect. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) despite clear risk levels. write_file is destructive but lacks confirmation/dry-run pattern.

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., read_file should return {"content": string, "size_bytes": number, "encoding": string} instead of raw file text.
• Add parameter constraints to descriptions: 'path (string, max 1024 chars, no ../ traversal)', 'text (string, max 1MB)', 'timezone (string, valid IANA ID like Asia/Shanghai)'.
• Implement structured error responses: {"error": string, "code": string, "retryable": boolean, "suggestion": string} instead of emoji-prefixed strings.
• Add tool annotations via @McpTool: destructiveHint=true for write_file, readOnlyHint=true for read_file/list_dir/file_info, idempotentHint=true for read operations.
• Add dry-run parameter to write_file: 'dry_run (boolean, optional, default false), if true, validate path and permissions without writing'. Return {"would_write": true, "path": string, "size_bytes": number}.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry