list_input_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying that content is not read, subdirectories are not traversed, and nothing is uploaded — explicit non-behaviors an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 tight sentence with zero padding. The scope constraint (first-level only) is front-loaded and every clause ('不读内容、不递归、不上传') earns its place by ruling out a distinct behavior.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned (names and sizes) and what is excluded. The gap is that paging parameters with defaults (limit=20, offset=0) are never explained, leaving an agent unaware that results are paginated and can be iterated.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. limit, offset, and project_id are entirely undocumented — no mention of pagination semantics or what project_id scopes to, even though the description references an 'input directory' without tying it to project_id.

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 ('仅列输入目录第一层的普通文件名和大小' — list first-level regular file names and sizes in the input directory) and scopes it precisely to the top level. This distinguishes it from document-reading siblings like read_document or parse_document, though no sibling is 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 negative constraints ('不读内容、不递归、不上传' — no content read, no recursion, no upload) implicitly tell the agent when this is appropriate versus a read/parse tool. However, no alternative tool is named and no positive trigger condition is stated, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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