列出目录

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true) leave a puzzle: why is a listing call not read-only? The description resolves it by disclosing that the first SFTP connection may persist TOFU state, which explains the side effect not captured by the annotations. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about failure modes (unreachable host, bad path) or whether subsequent calls are side-effect free.

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 tight clauses: purpose first, side-effect caveat second, with no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it verges on under-specification rather than true conciseness given the missing usage context.

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 not be described, and annotations plus the TOFU note cover the safety profile. Still missing for a remote-filesystem tool: behavior on nonexistent paths or unavailable servers, and any explicit non-recursive-vs-recursive distinction relative to sibling listing tools.

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 both parameters (path, server) are fully documented in the schema including the '/' root convention and the default-server fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (虚拟远程目录的下一层条目), and the 'next layer only' wording usefully pins down scope as non-recursive. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as search_files or get_file_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_files, get_file_info, or download_dir, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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