infomaniak_list_drive_files

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating pagination support, which is a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 two concise sentences—first sentence states the core purpose, second adds pagination support. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers the action, scope, and pagination. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that results contain file/folder metadata, but that is likely handled by the output schema. Overall, fairly complete for a straightforward 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 description coverage is only 25% (only parent_id has a description). The description partially compensates by explaining parent_id's role (omit for root), but the meaning of drive_id, per_page, and page is left to parameter names, which are mostly self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds some meaning but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 states the tool lists files and subfolders of a kDrive root or a specific folder, and that it supports pagination. This differentiates it from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_drives or infomaniak_list_domains, which list different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names only.

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