get_fs_ls_path

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

The description explicitly lists error codes, which adds behavioral transparency by informing the agent of possible failure modes. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The error code list is helpful but lacks explanations for when each error occurs, limiting its practical value.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists error codes. While the error code list is long and could be more integrated, the overall structure is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The description earns its keep by providing error information.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks details about the output schema structure, which the schema itself may provide. The error code list is a positive addition, but the description could better connect errors to input conditions.

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 only parameter, `path`, is not described beyond its name and type in the schema. The description merely says 'the given path' without clarifying format, allowed values, or examples. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaningful semantic detail to aid the agent in constructing valid inputs.

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 tool returns a list of FileInfos for a given path. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'FileInfos' combined with 'list... for the given path' provide a specific and unambiguous purpose. In the context of many get_ siblings, this tool is distinct as it deals with filesystem path listing, and the name itself is descriptive.

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 tool versus alternatives. For instance, the sibling tools include `get_fs_info_path` for metadata and `get_dl_path` for download paths, but the description does not differentiate when to use each. Additionally, no prerequisites or context for invocation are provided.

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