list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior; it conveys a read-only listing operation and scopes it to a pod's app root. It does not disclose whether the listing is recursive, whether directories are included, or what happens on an invalid path.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's core 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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, there are no annotations and no output schema, and the required 'name' parameter is unexplained. An agent would need outside context or sibling-tool conventions to invoke this tool reliably.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'path' has a description, but the required 'name' parameter is not described anywhere. The description does not clarify that 'name' refers to the target pod, so the most important parameter remains ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files under a path inside a pod's app root'), and the resource clearly differs from sibling tools like list_pods and read_file. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or call out exclusions, so it stops short of fully differentiating itself.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling tools are mentioned. The phrase 'inside a pod's app root' gives some scope, but an agent must infer when this tool is preferred over list_pods, read_file, or exec_command.

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