efs_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits (depth control, glob pattern filter, sorting) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. It also omits details about return format or error behavior, which could impact an agent's expectations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters) and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the core functionality and key options. It omits details like output structure and error conditions, but for a listing tool it is largely complete. Slightly more information on the return value would make it fully comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying 'depth control' (recursion) and 'glob pattern filter' (pattern syntax), which are not fully explained in the schema. This enriches the parameter understanding slightly beyond the structured fields.

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 'List directory contents' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions key capabilities (depth control, glob filter, sorting) that distinguish it from sibling tools like efs_read or efs_search. This provides immediate clarity on the tool's primary function.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference other tools or specify conditions where efs_list would be preferred over efs_search or efs_info. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.

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