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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and location scope without mentioning recursion, hidden files, output format, or whether directories are included, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, immediately clear sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and contains no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and behavioral specifics. The current description is too sparse to inform the agent about what the response looks like or how the listing is performed, making it incomplete for autonomous invocation.

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 input schema fully describes the single optional 'path' parameter with its meaning and default value, so the description does not need to add parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies because no additional semantic value is required.

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') and the resource ('files in the working directory'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like read_file or write_file, which operate on file contents. The scope is also specified, so there is no confusion about what is being listed.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. While the purpose implies it is for discovering available files, there is no mention of exclusions, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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