ls

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

The description discloses recursive behavior and output includes sizes and free space. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only status, potential side effects, or performance implications, leaving part of the behavioral profile unspecified.

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?

A single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it omits essential parameter information, making it efficient but not optimally structured for agent comprehension.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description could be sufficient if it explained the parameter. It does not, so an agent cannot reliably know how to specify a path or interpret results, leaving the description incomplete.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'path' with a default but no description. The tool description does not mention 'path' at all, so the parameter's meaning and valid values are completely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance.

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 action ('list files') and the resource ('on the board') with specific details (recursive, sizes, free space). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'info' or 'read', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer its applicability without any context.

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