檢視工作區資料夾

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: hidden files are excluded and the path is relative to the workspace, both of which affect what the agent will actually see.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the filtering rule. Nothing is padded, though the phrase 'supported text files' is slightly vague about which file types qualify.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed, what is filtered, and the path scope. Missing only return shape and depth/pagination behavior, which are minor here.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that the path is relative and workspace-scoped, which is useful, but never states the default ('.') or whether deeper traversal is possible.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List supported text files and folders') plus the scope ('relative workspace path'). It separates itself from read_text by aiming at enumeration rather than content, though it never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for discovering what exists in a directory, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over list_artifacts, get_artifact_path, or read_text. No exclusions are given.

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