list_filesystem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how missing/null parameters are handled, what include_files changes, or how trailing-slash handling behaves.

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 very short and front-loaded, containing no filler. The endpoint line and argument listing are efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

With three undocumented optional parameters and no parameter semantics in the description, an agent cannot determine what values are meaningful or how to use the tool effectively. Although annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the missing parameter behavior makes the description incomplete.

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, but it merely lists parameter names as 'Query parameter' without explaining their meaning or effect. This adds no value beyond the input schema's property names and types.

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 states a specific action ('Read FileSystem') and an exact endpoint ('GET /api/v1/filesystem'), making the resource targeted. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like list_filesystem_type or get_by_path, but the endpoint plus verb makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_root, get_by_path, or list_filesystem_type. The intended use is only implied by the name and endpoint, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing signals.

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