获取文件夹内容

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (file/folder list) but no additional behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or potential errors. It does not contradict 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 concise, structured with sections for parameters and returns, and contains no redundant language. Every line adds necessary information.

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 read-only list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not detail return format structure or pagination, but these are not critical for this simple tool. The response_format parameter is covered by schema, so the missing mention is acceptable.

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% for both parameters (folderId and response_format). The description mentions folderId but not response_format. It explains folderId is the folder ID, but the schema already provides that. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 retrieves files and folders under a specified folder, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like classin_get_folder_list by explicitly mentioning file and folder list within a folder context.

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 provides clear context of what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like classin_get_folder_list or classin_get_top_folder_id. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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