ipc_list_dir

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it notes the result names the absolute folder in resolved_pattern and warns that the hard-coded legacy path is stale on 3.1.4026. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other operational traits, but the additions are meaningful.

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 front-loaded and dense, with three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the operation, the second gives the key pattern preference and result detail, and the third routes other prefixes to a sibling. There is no filler.

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?

With an output schema available, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. It provides strong guidance for the critical pattern parameter and points to a sibling for other prefixes. The only notable gap is the unmentioned max_entries parameter, but its default makes this a minor omission.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the required 'pattern' parameter, including Win32 matching, preferred values, and where to look for other prefixes. However, it entirely omits the optional 'max_entries' parameter, leaving partial compensation for a two-parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List files on the target matching a Win32 pattern.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ipc_read_file by directing other prefixes there. An agent can identify the tool's function and key alternative without opening either schema.

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?

It gives clear context for pattern selection, advising 'boot:*' over the hard-coded legacy path, and names the alternative sibling ipc_read_file for other prefixes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other file-related tools in general, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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