get_list_of_files

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

The description discloses that the tool uses SSH and runs 'ls -lah', but with no annotations provided, it fails to mention behavioral traits like authentication methods (password/key), host key verification, or error handling. Some context is given, but it is incomplete for a full transparency score.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could include more detail without excessive length, such as parameter explanations, making it slightly less than perfect in structure.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description lacks essential context such as authentication mechanisms, host key handling, and the nature of the output (though it hints at '-lah'). It is not complete enough for effective tool usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all 8 parameters. However, it only mentions 'abs_path' and implies 'host' via 'remote Linux host', leaving parameters like 'user', 'port', 'password', 'key_path', 'timeout', and 'accept_new_hostkey' unexplained. This is insufficient compensation.

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 collects a list of files from a specific absolute path on a remote Linux host via SSH, and specifies it returns with the '-lah' option. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_list_of_files_with_filter' which implies filtering capabilities.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_list_of_files_with_filter'. The description only implies usage for basic file listing without exclusions or context about when to choose one over the other.

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