Explore filesystem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that root means the server's start directory and that globs support *, **, and ?. However, it omits traversal behavior (recursive vs. shallow), whether results include metadata like paths or sizes, and how directories are distinguished from files—gaps the agent must guess at.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the core action and location scope, the second covers both optional parameters in one clause. Every word contributes—no filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 low-complexity listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the base directory semantics, and the scoping/filter options. The main gap is the absence of return-value shape (absolute vs. relative paths, ordering), which the agent must infer. Minor but real, keeping it below a 5.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by specifying the root base for subpath resolution ('relative to root') and documenting the supported glob syntax (*, **, ?), which goes beyond the schema's brief examples. This enrichment justifies the 4.

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?

"List files and folders under the server's root directory" uses a specific verb (list) plus a precise resource scope (files/folders under the server's start directory). This clearly distinguishes it from content-focused siblings like read_file, grep, and edit_file, which all operate on the contents of individual files.

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?

The description conveys when to use it as a discovery tool ('List files and folders') and offers optional scoping ('scope to a subpath and/or filter with a glob pattern'). However, it never explicitly states what it is NOT for (e.g., reading file contents, searching inside files) or names alternatives, leaving the contrast with grep/read_file implicit.

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