list_chromium_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns recursive listings, pagination behavior, error handling for invalid paths, format of returned data, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with one parameter. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration - every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about return format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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% with the single parameter 'folder_path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific directory' which aligns with the schema but provides no additional context about path format constraints, relative vs absolute paths, or special directory handling.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resources 'files and folders' with the specific context 'in a specific directory of the Chromium source tree'. It distinguishes from general file listing tools by specifying the Chromium source tree context, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chromium_file' or 'search_chromium_code' which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for browsing directory contents) versus when to use siblings like 'get_chromium_file' (for file contents) or 'search_chromium_code' (for searching within files). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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