List OpenToonz level files

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behaviors beyond the schema: results are limited to 'recognized' level file types (filtering semantics) and the directory is workspace-relative (path resolution rule). It says nothing about recursion, ordering, whether the limit truncates silently, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping information (optional directory) arrives before the file-type enumeration. Nothing in it could be cut without losing content.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not say what a result entry looks like, whether paths returned are absolute or workspace-relative, how ordering works, or how limit interacts with the listing. For a listing tool with two undocumented parameters, these gaps matter to correct invocation.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description explains only that directory is optional and workspace-relative; the limit parameter (max 10000, exclusiveMinimum 0, default behavior) is never mentioned, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (OpenToonz level files) and even enumerates the level categories covered (drawing, vector, raster, palette-adjacent, image). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_artifacts or list_scenes, so an agent must infer whether 'level files' is a subset of artifacts.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_artifacts, list_scenes, or workspace_manifest, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the implicit 'optional workspace-relative directory' scoping.

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