List files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that node_modules and .git are skipped, which is useful context. However, it does not mention any other behavior such as whether the listing is recursive, sorted, or what the return format is. For a simple read operation, this partial disclosure earns a 3, but it could have easily added a note about being read-only.

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, concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. It states 'List all files' immediately and then adds the exclusion in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of file paths, boolean, etc.) and any relevant details. It does not mention the return format or how the app parameter is used. The tool is simple, but the description leaves out important details that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, meaning the parameter 'app' has no description in the schema. The description does not explain what 'app' refers to or how to specify it. Since there is only one parameter, the description should clarify its meaning, but it only says 'in an app' without linking it to the parameter. This leaves the agent to guess the value format.

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), the resource (files), and the scope (all files in an app), with an explicit exclusion of node_modules and .git. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file, write_file, and delete_file by specifying the listing action. No ambiguity.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, limitations, or alternatives. It simply states what it does without helping an agent decide if this is the right tool among the many siblings.

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