micropython_list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about error behavior for nonexistent paths, whether the listing is recursive, or any permission constraints.

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 short lines, the operation is front-loaded, and the parameter note follows immediately. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description covers the one input parameter and the operation's scope, which is adequate for a simple listing tool, though it omits any behavioral caveats that would help an agent call it confidently.

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 0%, but the description documents the single parameter and clarifies that it expects a directory path and defaults to '/'. With only one optional parameter this is sufficient, though the added meaning is modest beyond the schema's own title and default.

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?

States a specific verb ('一覧表示') and resource (files/directories on the MicroPython board filesystem), which clearly separates it from siblings like micropython_read_file or micropython_stat_path. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other listing/inspection tools (e.g., micropython_stat_path), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The default path hints at typical usage but the description never states context or alternatives.

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