list_root_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results exclude symlinks and are limited to tenant-granted roots, but it does not explain permissions, pagination, pattern matching behavior, or result handling.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the scope and key exclusion efficiently.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the two input parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. For a tool with optional filtering and limiting parameters, this leaves important invocation details missing.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention pattern or max_results at all. An agent cannot infer how pattern filtering or result limiting behaves from this definition.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: listing non-symlink files under tenant-granted workspace roots. It clearly scopes the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this listing behavior from sibling tools such as search_in_roots or read_root_file.

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?

It states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like search_in_roots or read_root_file. There are also no exclusions or conditions indicating when listing would be inappropriate.

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