list_local_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new value by stating the output includes size and readability (a permission check), but says nothing about the default-recursive behavior, which materially changes what gets listed.

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 operation front-loaded and no filler. It earns its brevity, though it omits the recursive detail that would justify a few extra words.

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?

No output schema and 0% parameter coverage, yet the description only partially describes returns and omits the default-recursive scope entirely. For a tool where recursion defaults on, an agent cannot predict whether subfolders are included.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does not. The 'recursive' parameter (default true) is never mentioned despite significantly changing the result set, and 'folder' is only implied by 'a local folder' with no format guidance.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List the files in a local folder', and it names what the listing contains (size, readability). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling read_local_file via the list-vs-read verb, but never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. 'a local folder the user pointed at' hints at conversational context but gives the agent no criteria for choosing this tool over read_local_file or the innoslate_* family.

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