QuantConnect

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by implying a listing operation. The description adds minimal context about directory scope, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, error handling, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, it meets a basic threshold without rich additional details.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only per annotations, with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in full contextual understanding despite the output schema's presence.

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 0%, but the description mentions 'directory in an organization', hinting at parameters like organization and path. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, as it doesn't explain parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what's implied. With one parameter, the baseline is reasonable but not enhanced.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Object Store files under a specific directory in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_object_store_file_download_url' or 'upload_object', which also interact with Object Store files but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like browsing files, checking directory contents, or how it differs from other Object Store-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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