tenki_list_files

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by disclosing that dotfiles are included by default and that include_hidden=false changes that behavior, which is not captured by the annotations alone.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies the key behavioral option. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple read-only directory listing tool, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, where, and the hidden-file behavior. It does not describe output format or recursion, but those are not critical for correct invocation given the read-only annotations and simple scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of include_hidden with concrete examples (.git, .env, .gitignore), going beyond the schema's basic property definitions.

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 a directory in a sandbox'. It further clarifies scope by mentioning dotfiles and the include_hidden flag, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tenki_list_sandboxes and tenki_read_file.

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 clearly states the operation's context: listing a sandbox directory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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