フォルダのファイル一覧

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the permission-boundary behavior ('許可フォルダ内') beyond annotations, but does not disclose other behaviors like non-recursive listing or behavior when the path is invalid.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the action and scope, and contains no redundant words. Every part contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the authorization scope. It is slightly incomplete only in not specifying whether the listing is immediate children or recursive, which would make it fully unambiguous.

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 the path parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, only the general allowed-folder constraint; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('返します') and resource (files/folders in a folder), and adds the scope constraint '許可フォルダ内' (within an allowed folder). It clearly describes the tool's function, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from list_allowed_directories or read_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 this tool is for listing the contents of a folder under an allowed root, but it does not state when to prefer this over list_allowed_directories or read_file, nor does it mention prerequisites such as first discovering the allowed folders. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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