qwen_list_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the basic listing operation but says nothing about default path behavior, pattern matching, recursive expansion, or whether hidden files are included. The behavior remains under-specified for an agent.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.

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 a tool with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. The output schema covers return values, but the meanings and interactions of path, pattern, and recursive are left unexplained. An agent would need external knowledge to correctly invoke non-default options.

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 any of the four parameters (project, path, pattern, recursive). The phrase 'inside a project' only hints at the required parameter, so agents cannot infer parameter formats, defaults, or semantics from this definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories inside a project'), clearly distinguishing from the sibling qwen_list_projects, which lists projects. It succinctly defines the tool's scope and likely output.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus qwen_search_files or qwen_read_file. The description states only what the tool does, not when or why to choose it, and no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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