list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'list files', omitting whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires permissions, the scope depth, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to clarify return behavior.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, making conciseness come at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain parameter behavior, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for effective agent invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters (pattern, max_depth, max_results, relative_directory). It fails to clarify their roles, defaults, or constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's field names and types.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'files', and specifies the scope 'workspace-contained directory', distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_file' (reads a single file) and 'workspace_info' (workspace-level info). However, 'workspace-contained directory' is slightly vague, lacking specificity about whether it lists recursively or the root directory.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (read_file, workspace_info). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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