file_file_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic purpose without detailing recursion behavior, default path, symlink handling, or return value structure. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It includes a bracketed category '[file]' that may aid categorization but does not provide essential operational information. While not verbose, it is under-specified for effective use.

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 has two optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., what path=None means), how pattern works, or the output format despite the existence of an output schema. The agent lacks context to use it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The path parameter is self-explanatory, but the pattern parameter's purpose (likely a filter) is not mentioned. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names from the schema.

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 'List files and directories at a given path' clearly states the action (list), the resource (files and directories), and a constraint (at a given path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_file_read or file_file_write, which handle file content operations.

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 no usage guidance, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browse_browse or search), or when not to use it. It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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