list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List files' reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond the tool name. It's front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there's nothing to load.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description 'List files' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, no parameter guidance, and no differentiation from sibling tools. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'path' parameter. There's no indication of what the path represents (absolute vs relative, directory vs file path, supported formats), what happens if the path doesn't exist, or whether wildcards are supported. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'List files' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates a listing operation, it doesn't specify what kind of files, from what system, or with what scope. Compared to sibling tools like 'list_containers' or 'list_databases', this lacks differentiation about what resource domain it operates on.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling listing tools (list_containers, list_databases, list_images, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for general file system files, specific file types, or particular contexts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is mentioned.

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