files_list_config_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that files are listed from the config directory or subdirectory, but omits details such as whether it lists files only or includes directories, hidden files, sorting, recursion depth, or any authentication/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 that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema (which eliminates the need to describe return values). The description covers the core functionality but could be enhanced with details about file type filtering, directory traversal, or error conditions.

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 single parameter 'subdirectory' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning 'or a subdirectory', clarifying its purpose. However, it doesn't specify allowed path formats, separators, or behavior when the subdirectory doesn't exist.

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 clearly states the action ('List files') and the resource ('HA config directory'), explicitly mentioning optional subdirectory support. It distinguishes itself from sibling file operation tools (read, write, delete, etc.) by being a listing operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like files_read_config_file or git_git_status. Usage is implied by the nature of listing files, but no context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusion criteria is provided.

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