list_storage_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it calls StorageApi.list_storage_files(path), enumerates directory contents, and returns a StorageList with file/dir elements. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., invalid/nonexistent path), sorting order, or whether the listing is recursive, which are relevant for an agent to predict side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, an 'Args' section, a 'Returns' section, and a 'Use case' section. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'enumerate the directory contents' followed by the return element list), but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and purpose. It remains concise for the amount of information provided.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, the parameter semantics, the return structure, and a realistic use case. The only gap is the lack of error handling information, but that is not critical for a simple read-only list operation.

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 single parameter 'path' is explained thoroughly: 'The directory path to list (e.g., "/", "/photos"). Defaults to "/".' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only shows a string with a default. The examples clarify the expected format and the default behavior, making the parameter easy to use correctly.

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 the resource 'files and directories stored on the Busy Bar device at a given path.' It distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools by focusing on storage file enumeration, and includes specific details like the underlying StorageApi call. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Browse device storage to find files before uploading, downloading, or managing media assets for display on the Busy Bar unit.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for storage browsing tasks. Sibling tools are all get_* status/info commands, so this tool is clearly the only one for listing files.

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