File List All

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the aggregation behavior (all pages merged into a JSON array), which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, or performance on very large directories, leaving notable behavioral 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its key behavioral trait with no filler. Efficient and well-structured, though very terse for a tool with five parameters.

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 re-explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description supplies the key differentiator (aggregation of all pages) needed to choose this over file_list. Without annotations it could have added a bit more on access/permissions, keeping it just short of 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 host, path, port, scheme, and profile. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (列出) and resource (目录全部内容) and adds the qualifier 全部 (全部 and 自动汇总所有分页) that distinguishes it from the sibling file_list. The distinguishing feature is clearly conveyed, though the sibling file_list is never named explicitly.

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 phrase 自动汇总所有分页 implies this is the tool to pick when a complete, non-paginated listing is wanted versus file_list, giving implied usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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