bgi_list_pathing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly describes a read-only listing of local files and the glob it scans, which implies no mutation, but it does not state whether scanning has side effects, how large results may be, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives the file scope and filtering behavior. No wasted text.

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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is listed, where it comes from, and the optional filter. It could add a brief note on result ordering or limits, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents both 'filter' and 'extra_dirs'. The description adds meaning for the filter ('只看名字含该关键词的路径'), but does not mention 'extra_dirs', leaving that parameter to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('本机已安装的地图追踪路径'), plus the exact file glob ('User\AutoPathing\**\*.json'), so the agent knows what is listed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bgi_find_routes, which could overlap semantically.

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?

Mentions the optional keyword filter ('可按关键词过滤'), implying how to narrow results, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus bgi_find_routes or other list/route tools. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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