fs_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious default behavior: recursion to depth, glob filtering, and default skipping of .git/node_modules/dist. However, it does not describe permissions, error behavior, or the fact that output is middle-truncated (that detail lives only in the schema), and 'and friends' is vague about the actual skip list.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the modifier behaviors trailing. No filler, though 'and friends' sacrifices precision for brevity.

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?

For an 8-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behaviors but never explains the shape of what is returned or the truncation semantics. Adequate, not complete.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description echoes depth and pattern and adds the default skip behavior, but contributes no additional syntax or constraint detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List a directory') and extends it to the stat case ('or stat one path'), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings like search_files or file_read, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings such as search_files, file_read, and shell_exec plausibly covering some of the same ground. The only routing-ish information is implicit in the behavior sentence.

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