list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the access method ('via FTP'), the scope ('printer's SD card'), and the nature of the operation ('List files'), which semantically indicates a read-only action. It stops short of explicitly saying it makes no modifications or describing failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core action and expected content are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential details: method, scope, and content type. It does not describe the return format, but an agent can reasonably infer a list of file entries from the verb and examples. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is nearly complete.

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 parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'path' and 'printer'. It stays at a functional level without enriching parameter understanding.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files on a printer's SD card via FTP'), with examples of returned content ('cached print files, timelapse videos'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling file operations like download_file, upload_file, and delete_file.

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 implies when to use this tool (whenever you need to see files on a printer's SD card), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The use case is clear, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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