List Phygital Brain files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds behavior the annotations cannot express: no recursion into subfolders, an error for nonexistent folders, and the scope boundary that it reads only Phygital Brain files, never the person's brain. 'Changes nothing' mildly restates the annotations, but the recursion and error semantics are genuine additions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and output format, then usage routing, then edge cases. Four short sentences, none of which is filler; the caveats (no recursion, error on missing folder) are the ones an agent actually needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-format burden and does so precisely (one name per line, sorted, trailing '/' for folders). Combined with the recursion, error, and scope notes, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'path' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the empty-value default. The description only implies that path names a folder rather than a file, adding little beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (files in a Phygital Brain folder), and it goes further by describing the exact output shape: one name per line, sorted, folders suffixed with '/'. It separates itself from the sibling phygital_brain_read_file by naming that tool as the follow-up step for reading file contents.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('Use it to find a file's exact name, then open the file with phygital_brain_read_file') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for the adjacent task. It also states the non-recursive behavior and the remedy ('list a subfolder to see its files'), so the agent knows what to do instead of expecting recursion.

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