List PDFs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the non-recursive scoping constraint, which is genuine behavioral information, but nothing about return shape, ordering, empty-folder behavior, or permission failures; the disclosed return fields duplicate the output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the two constraints and the returned fields. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is well covered. What remains thin is operational context: what 'allowed folder' means (configuration requirement) and whether the result is paged or ordered.

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% and the sole parameter is documented in-schema, including the omit-for-default behavior, so the description need not compensate. The phrase 'allowed folder' loosely reinforces the schema's constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 (List) and resource (PDF files) plus scope qualifiers: non-recursive, inside an allowed folder, returning size and modification time. This clearly separates it from single-document siblings like pdf_info and pdf_read_text, though it never names an alternative tool.

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 implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before reading/extracting, and 'not recursive' plus 'allowed folder' give scoping context. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement, and no direction to pdf_info for single-file details.

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