smartling-ls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the path restriction and default path behavior, which is useful. Yet it does not explain the output format, error handling, or what happens for invalid paths, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the purpose, the key constraint, and the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, where it works, and the default path. It lacks details about the return format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of schema information, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'path' parameter (100% coverage), including the requirement to start with /smartling and an example. The description adds the default value behavior ('Defaults to /smartling if no path given'), which slightly enhances the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding substantial new semantic information.

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 files') and the resource ('smartling working directory'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like smartling-cli or smartling-cat, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for a 5.

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 a clear constraint ('Only works within /smartling') and a default behavior when no path is given, which helps the agent understand context. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, so usage guidelines are 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.