ecp_files_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a non-mutating list operation, but it does not disclose whether hidden files are included by default, whether it recurses into subdirectories, or what shape the returned list takes.

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 or redundant wording. It loses a point only because its extreme brevity leaves important parameter and behavioral context unaddressed, though the concision itself is effective.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. Missing details include the optional/required nature of directory, hidden_files semantics, default behavior, and the format of the returned listing.

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%, and the description does not explain either 'directory' or 'hidden_files.' The agent is left to guess whether directory is a path or identifier, whether it has a default, and exactly what the hidden_files boolean controls.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List files/folders in a directory.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as ecp_files_directory_tree, ecp_files_read, or ecp_files_is_directory_exists.

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 like ecp_files_directory_tree or when a different file-listing approach would be preferable. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or sibling selection criteria.

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