List files and folders in a saved LayerFS directory with pagination, enabling agents to browse workspace contents page by page without loading all entries at once.
List a saved directory, with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| pagePos | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that results are paginated, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not explain pagination defaults, ordering, limits, or how a partial result is signaled.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it contributes to the under-specification captured in other dimensions.
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?
With four parameters, a required but undocumented `ref`, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently. The annotations cover safety but not the semantics of the saved-directory reference or pagination 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 carry parameter meaning. It implies 'path' and pagination via 'directory' and 'pagination', but leaves the required `ref` parameter entirely unexplained and gives no guidance on `pagePos`/`pageSize` defaults or constraints.
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?
It states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('saved directory'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, 'saved directory' is ambiguous in the LayerFS context, and the description does not distinguish this listing operation from siblings such as fs_glob, fs_stat, or sandbox_list.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus fs_glob, fs_grep, fs_stat, or operator_sandbox_list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.