list_latex_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover important traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), error handling for invalid paths, performance considerations for large directories, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with the file system.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (simple file listing), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, which could be important for robust agent use, keeping it at an adequate but not fully helpful level.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('directory_path' and 'recursive'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining path formats or recursion depth limits, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('.tex files in a directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latex_structure' or 'read_latex_file', which might also involve listing or accessing LaTeX files, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_latex_structure' for structural analysis or 'read_latex_file' for content access, leaving the agent to guess based on context alone.

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