rclone_lsjson

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists objects and directories, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. It also mentions returning fields like `rclone lsjson`, which adds some context about output shape, but lacks details on pagination, response format, or backend-specific behavior.

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, consisting of a single sentence with a dash-used emphasis. It is front-loaded with the action ('List objects') and includes a useful clarifier about matching `rclone lsjson`. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous 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?

The tool has 15 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a one-line summary. It fails to mention default behavior (e.g., non-recursive unless `recurse` is set), the return format (JSON array), or any caveats about performance or API usage. The reference to `rclone lsjson` assumes familiarity with the external tool, which may not be available to the agent. This is insufficient for such a complex 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Each parameter in the schema has a clear description (e.g., 'recurse', 'dirsOnly'), so the tool description does not need to compensate.

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's function: 'List objects — Lists objects and directories for a remote path.' It specifies the action (list), resource (objects and directories), and scope (remote path). It also distinguishes from siblings like operations_mkdir and operations_deletefile by its focus on listing. The reference to `rclone lsjson` further clarifies the exact behavior.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Siblings like operations_stat could be confused for listing a single object, but the description provides no comparative context or usage hints.

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