list

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that only indexed files are shown (excludes gitignored, node_modules, etc.). It also implies depth and entry limits via parameters. No mention of rate limits or side effects, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, exclusions, and usage advice. No redundant information, well-structured with front-loaded purpose.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core behavior, exclusions, and usage patterns. Could include more about return format or pagination, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a file listing tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., using 'summary' format first), but does not significantly enhance understanding for most parameters.

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 'List project files and folder structure' and specifies it excludes gitignored files. While it differentiates from siblings like 'grep' or 'search' by indicating it's for listing structure, it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use format summary first to understand project layout, then drill into specific folders with the path parameter.' This helps the agent decide how to use different formats but does not mention when to use alternative tools.

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