List files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context about node_modules and .git being skipped, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the listing is recursive, whether directories are included, or what the return format is, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a useful scoping detail. There is no irrelevant content; every word earns 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical details such as whether it returns a recursive file list, includes directories, or the structure of the result. This incompleteness could lead an agent to make incorrect assumptions about the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indicates that 'app' identifies the app whose files are listed, which provides essential context. Yet it does not specify whether 'app' is a name, ID, or path, nor any format constraints, leaving ambiguity for the single parameter.

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 action ('List all files') and the resource ('in an app'), and clarifies a specific behavior (skipping node_modules and .git). It distinguishes from siblings like read_file (which reads content) and list_apps (which lists apps).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file or list_apps. The context where this tool is appropriate (e.g., enumerating files for an app) is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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