List folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds genuinely new behavior: recursion costs one API request per subfolder and is capped at 25 per call, and results are paginated via limit/offset. It does not explain what the output looks like or what happens when the cap is hit, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then recursion/pagination behavior, then two compact intent examples. No filler sentences, though the example block adds some length beyond the essentials.

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?

Six optional parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and a read-only safety profile already covered by annotations. The description supplies the recursion cost and pagination context an agent needs; only the shape of returned entries is left implicit, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: recursive interacts with max_depth as 'levels to descend' and carries a per-subfolder rate-limit cost, and limit/offset are framed as pagination. Only response_format goes unmentioned outside the schema.

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 the files and folders inside a folder of your Nekoweb site') plus the ordering ('sorted by path'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like nekoweb_read_file or nekoweb_list_sites without opening any schema.

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?

Concrete examples map user intents ('What's on my site?', 'Find every image') to parameter sets, which gives clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative sibling for related operations, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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