infomaniak_list_drive_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about pagination support and the ability to list root or a specific folder. It does not detail limits or edge cases, but with annotations present, this is adequate.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It adds value without unnecessary words, making it an efficient and focused description.

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 an output schema and annotations, the tool is partially covered. The description provides basic context (root/folder, pagination) but lacks details on parameter usage, page/per_page defaults, and potential alternative tools. For a 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage, this is a minimal but not fully complete context.

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 only 25% (only parent_id has a description). The description mentions pagination and folder selection but does not explain drive_id, page, or per_page parameters. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key parameter semantics undocumented.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('files and subfolders of a kDrive root or a specific folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_drive_trash and list_drive_share_links by focusing on the file/folder listing operation.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when listing files/subfolders in a drive. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state exclusions (e.g., when to use list_drive_trash instead). The guidance 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.