list_fis

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool lists and defines parameters, but does not mention return format, error behavior, or that the operation is read-only. The agent is left without critical operational context such as what 'available' means or what the response contains.

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 appropriately short: one purpose sentence followed by a clean argument list. Every part earns its place, and the structure front-loads the main verb and resource. No unnecessary information is present.

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 simple but the description omits information about the output format or how the return value is structured. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot predict whether paths, filenames, or other details are returned. The authorized root is also left undefined, making the tool's behavior incomplete.

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?

The schema only provides titles and defaults, but the description's Args section explains that 'directory' is a sub-directory relative to root and 'recursive' controls sub-folder exploration. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema lacks, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function using the specific verb 'Liste' and the resource '.fis files'. It also mentions the constrained scope of 'sous la racine autorisée', which adds precision. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_fis or validate_fis, which operate on files rather than listing them.

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. The description only provides parameter definitions and does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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