list_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-recursive behavior and the empty-path root behavior, which are useful. However, it doesn't mention whether it returns folders, files, both, or any permission/error context. The output schema exists but the description doesn't add much beyond the basic behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key non-recursive caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the main behavioral caveats (non-recursive, empty path root). It lacks explicit guidance on output format or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return values. Given no annotations, a bit more context about what entries look like would push it higher.

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. It explains that empty path means the configured root, which adds meaning to the default value. However, it doesn't describe the expected path format (e.g., relative vs absolute, separators) or what happens with invalid paths. The single parameter is simple, so the gap is moderate.

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 ('List') and resource ('one iCloud Drive folder'), and clarifies it is not recursive. It distinguishes itself from search and read_text siblings by focusing on folder listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it: to list a single folder's immediate contents, with empty path meaning the configured root. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search for broader queries, but the non-recursive note gives some usage context.

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