list_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it lists files, reports specific metadata, and clarifies that subdirectories are not recursed. This is sufficient for a read-only listing operation.

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 sentences front-load the main purpose and then add specific details. Every sentence provides value, and there is 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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: what is listed, what fields are reported, and how subdirectories are handled. It is fully adequate for a simple listing tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter info but provides context about the output. A baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description exceeds it by specifying what each entry contains.

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 in the workspace directory, specifies the reported fields (name, absolute path, size, modification time), and notes that subdirectories are listed by name but not recursed. This is a specific verb-resource combination with no ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (to list workspace files) but does not provide comparison to sibling tools. However, since no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, the lack of alternatives is acceptable.

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