Listar arquivos

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it scopes listing to authorized folders, clarifies that file contents are never returned, and gives explicit user-communication instructions. This gives the agent a clear behavioral contract.

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?

Four sentences with no filler. The read-only nature is front-loaded, followed by return-value scope, safety reassurance, and the practical recursive flag instruction. Every sentence contributes something useful for invocation.

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 relatively simple listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the metadata returned, confirms no content is exposed, and instructs on how to communicate with the user. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the return shape or ordering could help, but the listed fields and parameters cover most agent needs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context about the pasta argument being authorized and the recursive flag, but mostly repeats information already present in the schema. It does not materially improve parameter understanding 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists files and folders inside an authorized directory. It clearly defines scope by saying exactly what is returned (name, path, type, extension, size, modification date) and what is not returned (file contents), which differentiates it from content-reading and modification tools.

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 gives useful operational context: it is read-only, requires no confirmation, and should be announced to the user in plain language. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over related alternatives like buscar_arquivos or obter_metadados, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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