dav_list

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the return format (raw WebDAV XML) and implies a read-only operation (listing). It does not disclose auth requirements beyond the parameters, but the parameters themselves (username/password) hint at authentication needs.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundant information. The key information (list, path, user, return format) 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?

Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. However, with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. Also, no usage guidelines or behavioral details beyond return format.

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%, meaning description does not elaborate on parameters. While 'path' is implied as the WebDAV path, username and password are not explained. The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema.

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 tool lists files/directories at a WebDAV path and returns raw WebDAV XML. It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource (files/directories), and distinguishes from sibling tools like dav_get or dav_delete.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among 30+ siblings, there is no indication of when dav_list is appropriate or when another tool like files_scan or external_storage_list might be better.

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