Browse files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the 500-entry cap and the relative-path convention, which are operational details an agent needs to avoid surprises. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three compact sentences, each contributing a distinct fact: scope, path format, and result cap. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and a well-annotated safety profile, the description covers purpose, path semantics, source values, and the entry limit. There is no output schema, but 'List folders and files' adequately conveys the return. Minor omissions like sorting or error behavior are acceptable for this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value with the illustrative relative path example 'worlds/<world>/maps' and clarifies the default source, giving practical semantics beyond the schema's terse parameter entries.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource (Foundry's data storage and public files), and scopes to 'one folder'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling file tools like create-directory, upload-file, and copy-file by focusing on read-only listing and explicitly naming the two source options.

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 implies usage through its functional definition and gives context like relative paths and the 500-entry limit, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or 'use X instead' routing, so an agent must infer applicability.

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