List Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list matching files' and does not mention recursion behavior, default recursion being true, possible large outputs, hidden files, permissions, or any side effects.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It adds almost no information beyond the title and lacks any structural breakdown of behavior or parameters.

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 two parameters with defaults, no annotations, and overlapping sibling tools, this description is incomplete. The output schema may document return values, but the description fails to explain matching syntax, recursion semantics, or when this tool is appropriate.

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 compensate. It gives no explanation of what 'pattern' means (glob vs regex), how 'recursive' affects traversal, or how the defaults behave. The only hint is the vague word 'matching'.

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 states a clear action and resource: '列出匹配的文件' means 'list matching files'. It is not a tautology because it adds the 'matching' qualifier, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like grep or read_file that also operate on files.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grep, search_code, or read_file. No exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended conditions are provided.

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