shared_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the local-workspace scope and transfer purpose, but it does not disclose details such as whether path recursion is supported or whether hidden files are included; those are minor for a read-only listing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation, scope, and purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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, has no required parameters, and its read-only/idempotent nature is already captured by annotations; an output schema also exists to explain return values. The only notable gap is parameter meaning, which is partially mitigated by self-explanatory names and defaults.

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%, and the description never mentions path or full_output. The phrase 'under the local shared workspace' weakly implies the path parameter is relative to that workspace, but full_output is left completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('files under the local shared workspace'), and explains the workspace's purpose ('used to move data between hosts'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like shared_read/shared_write, which presumably read or write file contents, and hosts_list, which lists hosts.

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?

It provides clear context that this tool inspects the local shared workspace for inter-host data movement, so an agent can infer when to call it before transfers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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