Folder

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: ordering, returned fields, path conventions, permission requirements, exclusions for hidden files and sensitive artifacts, and special handling for logs and configs. These details are exactly what an agent needs to call the tool correctly despite having no output schema.

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 dense but mostly front-loaded and each sentence adds operational information. The final sentence about configs is somewhat run-on and the opening phrase is awkward, but the overall size is reasonable for a tool with several special cases.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, ordering, permissions, excluded paths, and the logs/configs modes, and it does so thoroughly. An agent has enough information to understand what this tool will and will not expose.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents both parameters, but the description still adds useful semantics: path examples and forward-slash/relative-path rules, plus a fuller explanation of what `configs: true` returns and which permission it needs.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a server folder and specifies the returned information: names, folders-first ordering, sizes, modification times, and whether read_file/edit_file accept each entry. It also covers special modes for logs and configs, though it opens with the fragment 'A folder of the server' rather than an explicit verb and does not fully route among all sibling tools.

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?

It gives implied usage context by explaining when `configs` is used and how `logs` is listed, plus the permissions needed for logs versus other files. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as read_file, get_server_log, or list_plugins.

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