list_dated_files_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does state 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe edge-case behavior such as what happens when a folder contains no dated filenames, or whether the listing follows any particular ordering or hidden-file handling beyond the output schema.

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 short and front-loaded: the primary function is stated in the first sentence. The second sentence, 'Helps an agent decide what to ask next,' adds light context but is somewhat filler-like. Overall, it is concise with no repetition of schema fields.

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 simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description gives enough information to understand the basic call: a folder is required and the result will list reporting periods. However, it does not explain how to choose this over sibling tools, which leaves a notable completeness gap for an agent navigating multiple related tools.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. The description confirms that the 'folder' parameter is the source of dated filenames and that reporting periods are derived from them. However, it does not provide details about expected path format or accepted folder specifiers, though the single parameter is relatively self-explanatory.

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 and resource: 'List which reporting periods a folder holds from dated filenames.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like check_coverage_tool and check_staleness_tool, which are about validation rather than inventory.

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 phrase 'Helps an agent decide what to ask next' implies use as an exploratory step, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling check tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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