list_raw_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return structure (dict with files list and count) and names the parameters. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like whether the operation is read-only or potential error conditions, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise: three sentences front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant sentences, and every sentence adds value. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the description explains the return format. It mentions supported RAW files but could be more explicit about which extensions are supported. Still, it is complete enough for the use case.

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 only lists parameter names and notes the default for 'recursive'. For 'directory', no additional semantics (e.g., path format) are given. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'scan' and the resource 'directory for supported RAW image files', and the use case 'discover which RAW files are available for processing'. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like 'list_output_files' which handle output files.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover which RAW files are available for processing', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as noting when to use 'list_output_files' instead.

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