Ripgrep List Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool uses ripgrep and performs no pattern matching, which is useful behavior beyond the schema, but it omits read-only safety, default ignore behavior, symlink behavior, and output truncation details.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the 'No pattern matching' clarification directly follows to prevent misuse.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what is returned ('lists files') and how it differs from searching. The rich input schema covers parameters, though default behavioral details like ignore rules and truncation are left to schema parameter descriptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all ten parameters are already documented there. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's baseline, which is appropriate for a high-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all files') with scope ('in the search scope') and implementation context ('using ripgrep'). The phrase 'No pattern matching' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search tools that match content or patterns.

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?

The description gives a clear usage condition: use this when you want files without pattern matching. It implies the alternative (search tools) but does not explicitly name when-not or the sibling alternatives such as search or search-files.

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