syncnology_list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates that the operation lists files/folders, but does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, hidden files, or recursive listing. The output schema is present, which mitigates some lack of detail, but behavioral traits beyond the basic action are absent.

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?

Single sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and concrete examples. No redundant language or 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?

The tool is a simple listing operation with an output schema, so the description is minimally acceptable. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps around pagination usage and tool selection, making it only partially complete for the agent.

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?

The description provides path examples that clarify the folder_path parameter, but gives no meaning for limit or offset, despite the schema having 0% description coverage. The agent must infer pagination semantics from the parameter names and defaults, which is a notable gap for a paged listing tool.

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?

Specifically states the action (list) and resource (files/folders under a NAS path), with concrete examples. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_shared_folders (which lists top-level shares) and get_file_info (which targets a single file).

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 implies usage by showing path examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is inferable, but the agent receives no direct guidance.

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