Show folder tree

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: exact return shape, that totals cover only opened folders, the meaning of 'unexpanded' (depth limit, .git/node_modules, failures), that complete=false signals partial failure, and a 5-minute cache with a refresh override. This is rich, non-obvious context an agent could not get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then edge-case and cache behavior. Every sentence carries information. It is dense and the brace-enumerated return list is terse, which keeps it just short of maximally clean, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and it does so fully: field list, totals semantics, unexpanded/complete flags, and caching. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that depth limits cause folders to be counted as 'unexpanded' rather than expanded, and that refresh bypasses a 5-minute cache. That causal context for depth and refresh goes past the terse schema descriptions.

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+resource: a folder overview returning a tree with per-folder file counts and size totals, sorted largest first. This is clearly distinguishable from flat siblings like drive_list or drive_info by the aggregate/tree framing. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for an aggregate folder overview vs a flat listing. The caching note ("Cached 5 min; refresh=true re-reads") is operational guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-drive_list/drive_usage routing or stated exclusions.

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