list_files

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

The description discloses the return fields (name, type, size, last modified) and implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List'. However, with no annotations, it does not address edge cases such as whether the listing is recursive, how hidden files are handled, or what happens for invalid paths. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's exact behavior.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no redundant or unhelpful information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the return values adequately. However, it misses some contextual details like whether the listing is non-recursive or path semantics beyond the schema, which would round out the picture. It is complete enough for basic use but not exhaustive.

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?

The parameter 'path' is fully documented in the schema with examples and a default value, so the description adds no additional meaning. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and explicitly identifies the resource ('files and folders in a Nextcloud directory'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_file, upload_file, and create_folder, which perform different operations.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to see the contents of a directory), and the sibling context naturally differentiates it from file manipulation tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance that would earn a 5.

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