tdarr_get_subdirectories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning side effects, permissions required, or limitations (e.g., whether it follows symlinks, handles special folders, or if it's idempotent). The safety profile is unclear.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). While it starts with the essential information, it lacks any additional context that would make it more helpful. The brevity is appreciated, but the description would benefit from a note about output or edge cases.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of directory names or full paths). It fails to do so. For a listing tool with low complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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% (the single parameter folderPath has a description). The tool description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides. According to calibration, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no extra value is added.

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 'Get subdirectories of a folder' clearly states the action (get subdirectories) and the resource (folder). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the large set of siblings, most of which perform unrelated operations like backups, scanning, or server management.

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 instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and similar listing tools (if any exist among siblings).

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