everything_largest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says what kind of result to expect, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, sorting, limit behavior, pagination, permissions, or performance characteristics. For a listing tool with no annotations, this leaves significant operational gaps.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every clause contributes either purpose, scope, or parameter guidance.

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?

For a simple three-parameter listing tool with no annotations or output schema, the core purpose and primary filters are understandable. However, it omits limit behavior and does not describe the returned file fields or ordering, leaving some gaps against the lack of structured documentation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It gives useful examples for min_size and implies the path_filter usage with “under a folder or share,” but it does not explain limit, which remains undocumented beyond its name and default.

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 resource and result: largest files, optionally scoped under a folder or share. It also gives the intended use, disk-usage triage, which distinguishes it from generic search or count tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, 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?

The phrase “for disk-usage triage” gives a clear use case, and “optionally under a folder or share” clarifies the scoping choice. It does not state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives such as everything_search, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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