by_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output. It does not mention sorting direction, recursion behavior, handling of hidden files, file size calculation details, or whether the operation is read-only. The phrase 'Top file extensions by total size' implies some aggregation behavior but provides no explicit behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words or redundant content. However, it may be too sparse for a tool with six parameters and no annotations, so while it earns high marks for conciseness, it is not the ideal size for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It gives no usage guidance, behavioral details, or parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke it correctly. This is a one-line description for a non-trivial tool.

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 for six undocumented parameters. It adds no direct explanation of rootPath, limit, maxDepth, maxFiles, ignoreGlobs, or includeGlobs. The word 'Top' loosely hints at the limit parameter, but this is not sufficient for the agent to determine how to set parameters correctly.

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 identifies the resource (file extensions) and the metric (total size), and the word 'Top' implies a ranked result. It distinguishes from sibling tools like top_dirs and top_files by focusing on file extensions, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'List' or 'Compute'.

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 such as scan_summary, top_dirs, or top_files. It does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has no context for selecting it.

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