list_workspace_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing behavioral: not whether it is read-only, whether it requires a running/prewarmed VM, what it returns, pagination, or failure modes. 'live VM workspace' hints at environment but not behavior.

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 text is short but not informative—it is under-specified rather than concise. The fragmentary 'Extended:' prefix and redundant parenthetical consume the whole budget without conveying usable information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded sibling namespace, the description omits everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: triggering conditions, return shape, and environment assumptions. It is not adequate to the tool's 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?

Only one parameter (bcId) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the structured data does the work.

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 'Extended: live VM workspace (ListWorkspaceFiles)' essentially restates the tool name and adds a cryptic parenthetical. It never states a verb+resource plainly (e.g., 'lists files in the agent's VM workspace'), so an agent must infer the operation from the name alone.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling listing tools (list_artifacts, list_agent_stores, read_store_file, get_blob). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, though nothing is actively misleading.

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