list_supported_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: it filters by extension, returns a specific response type with relative_path/absolute_path/extension/bytes, and mentions recursion depth and entry limits. It also explains that the returned paths are meant to be passed to sibling read tools, which is valuable context not in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact: a purpose sentence, an integration hint, then a concise Args/Returns section. It avoids fluff and front-loads the core purpose. The Args/Returns format is standard and scannable. Slight redundancy with the schema (defaults repeated) but not wasteful. Good structure for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present), the description covers the essentials: what files are included, what the output contains, and how to consume the output. The output schema likely details the response structure, so not explaining return values in detail is fine. The main missing piece is a note about error handling or edge cases (e.g., inaccessible folders), but that's minor for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain all parameters, but it adds context beyond the schema: it explains max_depth and max_entries in the context of traversal (max depth and max files/folders to explore), and describes the return fields. The line '각 항목의 absolute_path를 ... 그대로 넘기면 됩니다' adds integration guidance. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: it filters a folder for specific file types (pdf/docx/pptx/svg/png) and returns a list of paths. The verb 'list' is specific, the resource is 'supported files within a folder', and the file types are enumerated. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like read_pdf/read_docx by noting it returns paths to pass to those readers, and from analyze_folder_structure by focusing on supported file types rather than general structure.

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 tells the agent to pass the absolute_path values from the result to the read_* tools, which is a clear usage directive. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need all files regardless of type), but the context signals and sibling list imply alternatives. The guidance is present but could be more explicit about when to choose this over analyze_folder_structure.

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