list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format for directories ('d 前缀=目录'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as recursion, hidden files, or read-only nature, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and the key output detail. No filler words or redundant 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?

For a simple list operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is appropriately concise. It includes the critical 'd prefix' detail, but could add a note about whether hidden files are included or if the operation is recursive. Still, given the low complexity, it is complete enough.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter meaning, including a default value. The tool description adds a contextual note about directory prefixes but does not further elaborate on the path parameter, which is already well-documented.

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's function with a specific verb ('列出' = list) and resource ('工作区下目录内容' = workspace directory contents), and even clarifies the output prefix for directories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file and write_file.

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 explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives is provided. However, the verb 'list' and the context of workspace make it evident that this tool is for directory exploration, which is implied by the name and description.

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