quest_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the path hint provides useful domain context. However, details like recursion, hidden files, error behavior, or return format are not disclosed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a genuinely useful path hint. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant content.

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's simplicity is matched by a clear main action, so the description is functional. However, it lacks return-value hints (no output schema), details about recursion or filtering, and explicit parameter requirements, which would be necessary for fully autonomous invocation in an agent context.

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%, and the description does not explicitly define device_path or device_id. The app-data path hint indirectly suggests what to pass as device_path, but it falls short of explaining the path format, the optional device_id, or the relationship between parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a directory'), making the tool's action immediately clear. The added app-data path hint also distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with apps or file transfer, fully clarifying its scope.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given, but the app-data path hint implies this tool is meant for browsing device directories, especially app-private storage. It does not exclude use for other paths or mention when to prefer push/pull tools, leaving usage context vague.

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