List files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the alias identity, not behavior: it says nothing about recursion, pagination, ordering, or what an empty path resolves to, and 'support MCP server action' is unexplained jargon.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste in length, but half of it ('to support MCP server action') is filler that earns no place, and the useful part (alias relationship) is under-explained.

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?

Given a real mutation-free but navigation-critical tool with a sibling duplicate and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves the two things an agent most needs unresolved: which tool to call and how to interpret path. Annotations cover safety but cannot fill these gaps.

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?

With a single 'path' parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning and does not. It never explains whether path is absolute or relative, or that the empty default means the user's root folder, so the agent must guess.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only asserts that it is an alias for list_contents. An agent must infer the actual behavior (listing files in a directory) from the name and title alone, and the phrase 'to support MCP server action' adds no semantic content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the near-identical sibling nextcloud_list_contents, which is exactly the ambiguity an alias creates. The agent is left to guess which of the two to invoke, with no stated preference, deprecation, or context difference.

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