File Recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it adds nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication/profile state is required, how many 'recent' entries are returned, or how recency is defined.

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 no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is minimal but not padded or convoluted.

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 no annotations, four parameters, and a large family of confusable file_* siblings, the description is too thin: it omits scope, prerequisites, and any behavioral context, though the existing output schema does relieve it of explaining return values.

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 host, port, scheme, and profile are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination ('列出...文件' — list recently accessed files), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as file_list, file_list_all, file_search, file_fav_list, or file_access, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever: nothing says when to prefer this over file_list, file_list_all, file_search, or file_access, nor what scope or session context is required. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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