List remote files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the two modes (list and glob search) but does not explicitly state read-only safety, potential for large result sets, or error behavior. The listing nature is inherently non-mutating, but more caveats could be disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then add usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given a simple list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and scope. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it, while parameter details are fully handled by the schema.

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 all three parameters 100%, including absolute path, glob pattern, and service_id default. The description adds a '*.lua' example but does not significantly exceed the schema's explanatory power, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists a directory and supports recursive glob search, distinguishing it from siblings like pz_read_file (reads file content) and pz_list_logs (targets logs specifically). It also specifies the resource ('directory on the gameserver') and the action ('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?

It instructs to call this tool to explore the server filesystem beyond known config files, which implies other tools should be used for config files. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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