list_files

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 'filenames are data' caveat and the exact-absolute-path/no-wildcards input constraint, which are not visible in structured fields.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two constraints that matter. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits what happens on a non-existent path, whether entries are folders/files, and any auth prerequisite for Netdisk access, leaving gaps for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 0% for the single path parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies an exact absolute path and that wildcards are rejected. It leaves the default '/' and the meaning of the parameter as the target folder implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List one Netdisk folder'), and 'one' signals non-recursive scope that distinguishes it from transfer-listing siblings. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives (file_info, list_transfers), but an agent can tell what this enumerates.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. It does not say to reach for file_info for detail or to use this before download/copy, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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