ck_fs_ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that it is read-only and states that no files are modified. It also clarifies the path parameter behavior (omit to list root). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, read-only nature, path guidance, and sibling tool references. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, annotations provide safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers what, how, and when to use, plus alternatives. No gaps remain.

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 has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage (path lacks description). The description adds meaning for 'path' by explaining it is a relative directory path and that omitting it lists the project root. This compensates for the missing schema description.

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), the resource (files and directories), and the scope (inside bound project root). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ck_fs_find, ck_fs_read, and ck_fs_grep.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('browse directory structure') and provides direct alternatives for other tasks (ck_fs_find, ck_fs_read, ck_fs_grep). It also notes the read-only nature.

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