fluig_ged_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the server-side `order` requirement that yields a 500 (not 400) and the fact that the tool injects a safe default. It also discloses the pageSize default of 100. It does not state read-only safety or return shape, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the critical caveat and the defaults. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

Purpose, the critical server quirk, and defaults are covered, which is solid for a 5-param read tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description never says what the listing returns (document/subfolder fields, pagination totals), leaving a real gap for an agent consuming the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the schema lists `order` as an optional enum member, while the description reveals it is effectively mandatory server-side and defaulted by the tool. The pageSize default note duplicates the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in the first clause: it navigates the GED listing documents and subfolders of a given folder. An agent can tell this is a folder-content lister. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the GED siblings (fluig_ged_path, fluig_ged_download, fluig_ged_upload), so it falls short of 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?

Usage is only implicit: 'navigate the GED ... of a folder' implies you call it to browse a folder's contents. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to fluig_ged_path/download/upload. The only explicit guidance is operational (order mandatory, defaults supplied), not selection guidance.

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