ck_fs_ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context by stating 'Read-only — no files are modified' and explaining the optional path parameter's default behavior. This reinforces and slightly extends beyond the annotations.

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 compact: five sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, followed by parameter explanation and sibling tool references. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) and an output schema (not shown), the description is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and alternatives without needing to detail return values.

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 description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter by explaining it's a relative directory path and that omitting it lists the project root. The other two parameters (project_root, session_id) are already documented in the input schema with descriptions, so overall coverage is good.

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 it lists files and directories inside the bound project root, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ck_fs_find, ck_fs_read, and ck_fs_grep by describing their different purposes.

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: 'Use ck_fs_ls to browse directory structure.' It also provides clear alternatives: ck_fs_find for name-based search, ck_fs_read for reading files, and ck_fs_grep for content search, along with the note that omitting path lists the project root.

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