fs_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that entries are tagged by type, which is useful, but it omits details such as whether hidden files are included, whether the listing is recursive, or any read-only guarantee. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core action and output format without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no complex schema, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and output type. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but for a listing operation this is sufficient. The lack of annotations and output schema raises the bar, yet the description still provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'path' parameter beyond its presence in the schema. However, the parameter is self-explanatory and has a default, so the lack of extra explanation is not a major gap. The description adds no semantic detail but the situation is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'entries of a directory', and specifies that each entry is tagged as file or directory. This distinguishes it unambiguously from siblings like fs_read (read file content), fs_write, and fs_search, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it is preferred (e.g., exploring a directory before reading a file) or when a different tool like fs_search would be more appropriate. The description lacks any routing or exclusionary context.

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