mybox_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the API pages internally at 1000 entries per page and that count is an upper bound, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It says nothing about ordering guarantees, error behavior, or whether a missing folder_id path is valid, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is a tight, scannable mapping of each parameter. No filler, though the header sentence and Args list could be even more compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. All three parameters are covered, defaults and the drive-root case are addressed, and the pagination caveat is stated — the agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it explains folder_id's null/omitted meaning, count's paging semantics above the schema default of 100, and enumerates the valid sort fields. It omits the allowed direction values (e.g. asc/desc) even though the schema default is 'modifiedAt,desc'.

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 and resource ('List files and folders') and pins the scope precisely ('directly inside a folder, or the drive root'), which implicitly separates it from a recursive search. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary with mybox_search or mybox_file_info.

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?

'Omit for the drive root' gives one concrete usage rule for the default case. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over mybox_search (recursive) or mybox_file_info (single-item metadata), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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