list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Respects .gitignore' is genuinely useful context that prevents confusion when ignored files are absent from results. However, other behaviors — recursion semantics, handling of hidden files, path formatting in output — are not disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words: the first states the purpose, the second adds a meaningful behavioral caveat. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place, which is exactly right for a simple listing tool.

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 moderately complex (three optional parameters that alter behavior) with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain the return shape, whether traversal is recursive, or how max_depth interacts with the listing, so an agent must discover these details by calling the tool.

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%, with clear descriptions for path, pattern, and max_depth already present in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 — 'List files/dirs' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling operations like read_file, search_in_file, and patch_file. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the purpose is self-evident and easy for an agent to act on.

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 search_in_project or read_file. The description provides no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or when listing is the right first step, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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