fs_list

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

No annotations supplied, so description must cover behavior. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation but lacks details on hidden files, symlink handling, performance limits, or error cases. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words, no extraneous information. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Tool is simple with 2 optional parameters and no output schema. Description specifies main behavior but omits output format (e.g., full paths vs names, sorting), default depth, and whether hidden files are listed. Adequate for low complexity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of path, recursion depth interpretation). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'files and directories'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like fs_read (read file content) and fs_search (search for files). Scope 'under a path, up to a given depth' adds precision.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward and alternatives are not critical. No exclusions or context provided.

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