list_server_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that files are listed but does not say whether the listing is recursive, whether directories are included, whether hidden files are returned, or what the response format looks like. This leaves notable ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 communicate the operation, the resource, and the intended use case with no redundancy. The key behavior is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the subdirectory target and the purpose. The absence of an output schema means return details are unstated, but the nature of 'list files' makes the expected result reasonably inferable.

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 already describes 'subdir' as 'Subdirectory to list', and the tool description adds meaningful examples and purpose by naming gamemodes, plugins, include, and the search for .pwn/.inc source files. This helps the agent construct valid parameter values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List files in a SAMP server subdirectory' with concrete examples like gamemodes, plugins, and include. It also states the intended use case of finding .pwn and .inc source files, clearly distinguishing this from other file content 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 tells the agent when to use this tool: to find source files in a SAMP server subdirectory. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing operation among many file-oriented siblings.

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