list_files_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and does not disclose output format, hidden-file behavior, error handling, or whether it returns absolute/relative paths. This is minimal disclosure beyond the verb 'List'.

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 that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and option. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple listing tool with two parameters, the description gives the core operation but omits details on return values, edge cases (e.g., nonexistent path), or limitations. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would improve completeness, but it is minimally viable.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters (path and recursive) with clear descriptions. The description's phrases 'in a specified path' and 'optional recursive listing' essentially restate the schema, adding no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the exact action ('List') and resource ('files and directories') with an explicit scope ('in a specified path'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file_code (reading content) and search_files_code (searching for files), and mentions the optional recursive flag, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing directory contents but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like search_files_code. It does not state when not to use it or mention any exclusion criteria. Usage is inferred from the description, not instructed.

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