ugreen_list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the default root is shared, the unary ls-root endpoint is used for device compatibility, and the file array's location in the response is data.data.file_list.files with official total/page fields preserved. It does not describe pagination limits or error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording; the default scope comes first and the response-shape detail comes last. It is dense but each sentence adds information, so it is efficient rather than padded.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully explains where the file array lives in the response. Still, for a six-parameter listing tool with 0% schema coverage, gaps remain around pagination (page/limit), sorting (sort/reverse), and any permission or error behavior.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the 'root' default (shared) and the meaning of 'path' (a specified folder), but says nothing about page, limit, sort, or reverse, leaving four parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list the personal/shared root or a specified folder. It also names the default root (shared), which pins down the tool's default scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as ugreen_search or ugreen_file_stat, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('list a root or a folder, defaulting to shared'), and the note about the unary ls-root endpoint being compatible with devices where the streaming interface is unavailable gives operational context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over ugreen_search, ugreen_file_stat, or ugreen_search_results, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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