mind_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the listing is recursive, what happens if subdir is empty, or the format of the output (e.g., full paths). The behavior is only vaguely described.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not earn its place fully as it omits important details. It could be expanded with bullet points or additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the simple parameter and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address output format, recursive behavior, file extension filtering, or error handling. A more complete description would add these details to aid correct invocation.

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 must explain the parameter. It mentions 'subdirectory of .mind/' but does not clarify that 'subdir' is a relative path, whether nesting is supported, or the default behavior when omitted. The parameter meaning is ambiguous.

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 the action (list) and the resource (markdown files under a subdirectory of .mind/). It is distinct from sibling tools like mind_read (reading content) and mind_recall (recalling memories).

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 when to use (to list markdown files in a subdirectory of .mind/), but provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The sibling tools have different purposes, so usage context is somewhat clear but not explicitly guided.

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