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

readOnlyHint already establishes the read-only safety profile, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the default website root and the recursion cap of 1000 entries. It does not go into truncation or pagination behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the primary action and default location, then add the recursive option. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of structured metadata.

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?

Between the description, fully described schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and output schema, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly: default root, path-format example, recursion depth/count cap, and required site parameter. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents path, site, and recursive with examples, defaults, and limits. The description mostly restates the default root and recursive behavior, adding little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists files and folders in a folder of the website') and names the default location, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling list tools like list_sites and list_dns_records. There is no ambiguity about what is being enumerated.

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 gives practical guidance on the default root and on using recursive for subfolders, so an agent knows how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_file or list_sites, nor provide exclusions.

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