Browse Folder (EVS)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it identifies the underlying EVS endpoint, names the extra fields returned, and documents a practical limitation (bare root paths unsupported). This gives the agent realistic expectations for calling the tool.

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 only two sentences, with the core function front-loaded and the prerequisite and limitation placed immediately after. Every clause adds information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 simplicity (2 fully documented params, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the critical invocation pitfalls: EVS path format and the need to discover roots via `list_files`. It names the added return fields but does not enumerate the full return structure, which is a minor gap for an output-schema-less 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented with format examples and references to sibling tools. The description mostly restates the path-format constraint rather than adding substantial new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Lists the files and folders backed up for a given device at a given path.' It distinguishes this tool from the sibling `list_files` by explicitly naming the richer EVS endpoint and the added fields (trash/checksum/live-image), so an agent can tell them apart without opening their schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use `list_files` first to discover drive letters/roots and warns that a bare root path has never been observed working. It also contrasts this tool with `list_files` by field richness, giving a clear selection rationale, though it does not explicitly state the condition under which `list_files` should be preferred over this tool.

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