File List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are single-page; it says nothing about auth/session requirements (the profile parameter implies a session), truncation limits, or what happens when the path is invalid. For a no-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the scope qualifier front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves real gaps that conciseness alone cannot excuse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and only a 'single page' note, an agent gets no guidance on authentication, session/profile behavior, or relationship to file_list_all, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented in the schema (host, path, port, scheme, profile). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies since 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+resource (列出目录内容) and adds a scope qualifier (单页) that implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling file_list_all. An agent can tell it is a directory-listing tool, though the single-page distinction is only hinted rather than named as an alternative.

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 (单页) implies this returns one page of results, which suggests file_list_all is the choice for a complete listing, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or names the alternative. Usage must be inferred from the sibling name.

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