list_all_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses recursion, starting directory, and extension filtering, but does not mention edge behaviors like handling of non-existent paths, hidden files, symlinks, file ordering, or what happens when maxDepth is reached. These are relevant for a recursive file listing tool.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second covers optional parameters and use case. No filler or unnecessary repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderately complex with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior and options, but it does not mention return format, sorting, edge cases, or explicitly compare against similar sibling tools. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between 'list_all_files' and 'list_files' or 'get_vault_structure.'

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 descriptions cover 100% of the three parameters (path, maxDepth, extensions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating that one can start from a directory and filter by extension, without additional clarifications on defaults, formats, or boundary behaviors.

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 action and scope clearly: 'Recursively list all files in the Obsidian vault.' It adds optional directory and extension filtering, which distinguishes it from a plain list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'list_files' tool, so it's not fully unique.

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 context with 'Useful for getting a complete view of vault structure,' which implies a use case but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to or mention alternative tools like 'list_files' or 'get_vault_structure.' This leaves the agent to infer when this is preferred.

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