list_includes

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the object and location. It doesn't say whether the operation is a non-destructive live filesystem scan, whether subdirectories are recursed, whether results are cached, or what happens when the paths don't exist.

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?

One sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler; every word contributes either the action, the object, or the scope. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter listing tool, but 'other common paths' is undefined and, with no output schema present, the return format (absolute vs. relative paths, recursive or not) is never addressed. An agent must guess at these details.

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 tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4 — there are no parameter semantics for the description to document. The description goes slightly beyond the empty schema by clarifying what the tool targets (.inc files in specific paths).

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('.inc files'), and scoped locations ('pawno/include and other common paths'). This is enough to distinguish it from file-domain siblings like read_include (reads one file), check_includes (validates includes), and install_include (adds an include).

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?

No when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. The tool sits among a crowded cluster of include- and file-related siblings (check_includes, read_include, install_include, list_server_files), so an agent gets no help deciding to choose this one over them.

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