File Calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the recursive traversal (a behavioral trait with cost implications), but says nothing about permissions, performance on large trees, or whether stats are cached. It adds some value but leaves key behavioral facts unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, and the differentiating clause is placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and full schema coverage handles parameters. The description covers purpose and sibling disambiguation, which is nearly sufficient for a simple statistics tool; only the behavioral gaps noted above keep it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (计算目录统计信息) plus the scope (递归统计), and explicitly positions itself against the sibling file_size. An agent can distinguish it from file_size without opening either 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?

The parenthetical names the alternative (file_size) and the condition that selects this tool: recursive directory statistics rather than a single-entry size. It gives clear selection context but does not enumerate exclusions or when to prefer other siblings like file_usage.

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