list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output format (newline-separated list), the path relativity (relative to vault root), and the exclusion of system directories like .obsidian. It also provides a concrete example, giving clear behavioral expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core function, followed by return format details, a usage hint, an exclusion note, and an example. Every sentence contributes valuable information without unnecessary 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It explains the return format, path convention, exclusions, and how to use the output with get_file_content(). The output schema further supports completeness, but the description alone would suffice.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none to explain, and the empty schema fully covers the parameter space.

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 states 'List all files in the Obsidian Vault and return their paths' which clearly identifies the specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_content and find_files by focusing on the full listing of files and their paths.

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 implies usage context by indicating this is the exhaustive listing tool, and it provides a follow-up instruction to use paths with get_file_content(). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of find_files or find_in_all_file_content, so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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