List files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no mention of recursion, pagination, hidden-file behavior, ordering, or required panel/application key permissions. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the call is a safe read-only listing or what scope of credentials it needs.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of content rather than being a model of economy.

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 6-parameter tool with multi-tenant override parameters (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey), no annotations and no output schema, one sentence leaves the agent without enough context to call it confidently or interpret results.

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?

Coverage is 67%, and the most important parameter for this operation, 'directory', has no description in the schema and no clarification here (is it required? does omitting it list the root?). The description never connects 'path' to a specific parameter, and the panel/server/baseUrl/clientKey override layering that dominates the schema is left unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List files and directories') plus a scope ('at a path on the server'), so the agent can distinguish it from files_read or files_write. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus files_read, files_download_url, or recursive listing, and no preconditions are stated. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and one-line purpose.

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