list_sd_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential errors (e.g., invalid path, SD card not present), rate limits, or the format of the output (e.g., list structure, file details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with hardware.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of interacting with a CNC controller's SD card and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, output format, or system dependencies, which are crucial for safe and effective use in this hardware context. The description alone is insufficient for a tool with potential operational impacts.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Directory path on SD card (default: root)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain path syntax, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories on the CNC controller's SD card'), providing a specific action and target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_backups' or 'list_macros', which also list different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the SD card must be mounted or accessible, and doesn't mention any exclusions or related tools like 'upload_to_sd' or 'delete_sd_file' for file management operations.

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