webdav_list_remote_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'List'), potential authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List files and directories') and includes essential context ('at the specified path on a remote WebDAV server'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 1 parameter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a simple listing tool. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral aspects, and output, which are needed for full understanding. It's adequate but with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter is a 'path' on the remote server, which clarifies beyond the schema's type and default. However, it doesn't provide details like path format constraints or examples, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('files and directories') with the scope ('at the specified path on a remote WebDAV server'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'webdav_get_directory_tree' by focusing on a single path, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'webdav_list_directory_with_sizes' which suggests a similar function with additional details.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'webdav_get_directory_tree' (which might list recursively) or 'webdav_list_directory_with_sizes' (which includes size information). The description implies usage for listing contents at a path but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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