pcloud_list_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation by saying 'List contents,' but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., API rate limits), error behavior on invalid paths, or the impact of the 'recursive' flag. The description adds some context (returns metadata) but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('List contents of a folder in pCloud'), and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds value.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return value at a high level ('files and subfolders with their metadata'), but it does not explain recursive behavior, error handling, or the exact metadata structure. Given the tool's simplicity and schema completeness, this is nearly complete but could be slightly more explicit.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('path' and 'recursive'), each with clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('contents of a folder in pCloud'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcloud_get_file_info (single file) and pcloud_search. It also mentions the return type (files and subfolders with metadata), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage (listing a folder's contents) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or limitations. For example, it doesn't say 'use pcloud_search for cross-folder queries' or 'not for retrieving a single file's info'.

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