sandbox_file_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the listing is recursive, what happens if the path is a file, if hidden files are included, or error handling. The basic purpose is stated but lacks depth for safe usage.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It uses active voice and clearly identifies the action. No unnecessary words, though it could add a bit more context without being verbose.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return format (e.g., list of file names with metadata) and any quirks (e.g., behavior on error). It does not, making it incomplete for the complexity of a file-listing operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, but the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics. 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 files and directories in a sandbox path, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'files and directories'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sandbox_file_info (which gets metadata) and sandbox_file_read (which reads content), though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sandbox_file_exists, sandbox_file_info, or sandbox_file_read. There is no mention of directory listing behavior for non-existent paths or permissions issues.

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