list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral facts of non-recursive default and that recursion is bounded by max_entries, but doesn't say what happens when the cap is hit or how results are ordered.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and every clause carries information (disk identity, default depth, recursion cap). No filler.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. Gaps remain around desk/project identification requirements and truncation semantics when max_entries is reached, which matter for a 6-parameter tool.

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 only 33%, with desk_id, project_id, recursive, and max_entries undocumented there. The description partially compensates by explaining recursive and max_entries, but leaves desk_id/project_id selection and the relationship between path and the desk identifiers 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 folders on a project disk'), and clarifies the disk is the Constructor desk's project folder. It is distinguishable from list_images by naming files/folders, though it never explicitly contrasts with its siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_images or sync_files, and no prerequisites (e.g., that desk_url should be obtained from the user). The default non-recursive behavior implies browsing, but routing is left to inference.

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