list_files

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

The description explains the return type (flat list of paths) and pagination. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens when a path doesn't exist, but it adequately describes the core behavior.

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 efficient: a clear one-line summary, a sentence distinguishing from a sibling, and a well-structured Args list. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 has an output schema (not shown) which likely covers return structure, so description needn't repeat. It explains all parameters, pagination, and default branch. Could mention rate limits or error conditions, but overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear, concise explanations for all six parameters in the Args section, including defaults and semantics beyond their titles.

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 clearly states 'List file paths in a repository directory (paginated)' and explicitly differentiates from sibling 'browse_files', which returns structured entries. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear distinction.

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 contrasts with browse_files, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool for flat file paths vs structured entries. However, it does not address other siblings like find_file or list branches, which could be similar.

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