bookshelf_list_filesystem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that (no contradiction). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—it doesn't explain return structure, depth, pagination, or potential performance implications. With such minimal value beyond the annotation, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter list. It is not overly verbose, and each part serves a basic purpose, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is still too sparse. It does not explain how the parameters affect the result, what kind of filesystem hierarchy is returned, or how this differs from sibling filesystem tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need for return-value detail, but the operational context is lacking.

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%, so the description must compensate; it lists parameter names but provides no semantics. The names in the description (includeFiles, allowFoldersWithoutTrailingSlashes) are in camelCase, while the schema uses snake_case (include_files, allow_folders_without_trailing_slashes), potentially confusing an agent. This adds very little meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states the tool lists filesystem data with a clear verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_filesystem_type and list_filesystem_mediafiles by its generic scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or explain what kind of listing it performs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely lists query parameters, offering no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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