remote_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing and discloses the returned metadata fields, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about recursion depth, truncation behavior when maxEntries is hit, or permission/error behavior on unreadable directories.

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 appends the return contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers purpose and return fields, which compensates for the missing output schema and annotations. It remains incomplete on truncation/pagination semantics and on the boundary with the many sibling listing/search 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 100%, so both path and maxEntries are already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no syntax, path-form, or default-value detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (远端目录内容), and adds the return shape (类型、大小、修改时间). It is clearly distinguishable from the search/find siblings in intent, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as remote_search, remote_find, or remote_stat. The agent must infer that this is for browsing a known directory rather than locating files.

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