Lists all files in the workspace so you can inspect available project files and understand the sandbox contents before reading or editing.
List all files in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no statement about recursion depth, hidden files, pagination, or whether the listing is workspace-wide only. The existence of an output schema covers the return shape, which limits some of the gap, but the behavioral traits of the listing itself remain undisclosed.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it fails to earn its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. However, the key ambiguity for a listing tool — recursive vs top-level, and whether hidden or non-file entries appear — is left unresolved, so the description is only minimally sufficient.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not misleadingly imply parameters that do not exist.
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?
A clear verb+resource pair ("List all files") that an agent can immediately distinguish from read_file/write_file operations in the sibling set. It stops short of stating scope details like recursion or whether directories are included, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus read_file or run_python for discovery, and states no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.