krl_workspace_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: 'Lists' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and it discloses the required LiskinLabs KUKA KRL extension, which is useful prerequisite context. It says nothing about what happens when the workspace is empty, whether results are paginated or recursive, or whether hidden/system folders are included.

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 no filler: the first front-loads what is returned and where, the second gives the prerequisite. Every clause 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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description still leaves the return shape unspecified (bare names vs. paths, ordering, whether nested directories are traversed) and gives no failure behavior when the extension is absent. What it does cover — content types and the extension dependency — is accurate but not sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to convey and cannot be faulted; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleadingly implies options that don't exist.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists ... in the active workspace') and enumerates exactly what is listed (.src, .dat, .sub), which makes the scope concrete. It does not contrast with siblings such as krl_read_file or krl_workspace_diagnostics, so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like krl_read_file or krl_workspace_diagnostics is given. The only conditional information is the prerequisite extension, which is a requirement, not usage selection.

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