brain_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool lists files, scoped to the vault, and respects depth and pattern limits. However, it does not disclose details like whether path is required, how hidden files are handled, or whether the listing is recursive by default.

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 that says exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key constraints are included compactly.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description leaves gaps around the path parameter and usage guidance relative to siblings, so it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains depth and pattern as 'limits', but it does not clarify the semantics of 'path', the meaning of depth values, or how patterns match file names. The path parameter, which defaults to empty, is left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('files in the vault'), making the core purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like brain_read or brain_grep, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use brain_list versus brain_search, brain_grep, brain_stats, or brain_read. The description does not mention exclusions, preferred scenarios, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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