ap_fs_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only listing and that it executes against ArmorPaint's filesystem view, which may differ from this server. It does not address errors or output format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler; the key functional and contextual information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it states the operation, the execution context, and the primary use case. No output schema is present, but the return concept is implicit in 'List a directory' and would not affect call correctness.

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 input schema fully documents 'path' with absolute-path and slash-conversion details; the description adds the important nuance that the path is interpreted by ArmorPaint's process, which may live on another machine or container. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states it lists a directory and scopes it to the ArmorPaint process, which distinguishes it from server-side listing and from sibling FS tools like ap_fs_stat and ap_fs_mkdir.

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?

Provides clear context by noting the remote/container filesystem and gives a concrete use case ('finding what an export actually wrote'), but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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