list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read with no side effects, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that filtering, sorting, and pagination are supported, which is useful behavioral context, but does not explain pagination behavior, defaults, or result ordering.

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-loaded with the purpose and followed by a compact capability summary; nothing is padded. It is appropriately sized, though the capability sentence reads as a feature dump rather than targeted guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key calling details (pattern syntax, allowed filetype/sort values, pagination defaults) unaddressed, so it is only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does map loosely to the parameters ('glob pattern filtering' -> pattern, 'file type filtering' -> filetype, 'sorting' -> sort_by/sort_direction, 'pagination' -> limit/offset), but provides no glob syntax, no accepted filetype or sort values, and no default behavior for the 7 parameters.

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 (list) and resource (files and folders in a directory), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_files, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between simple listing and searching.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite search_files being an obvious sibling. The feature list ('glob pattern filtering') actually overlaps with search functionality without clarifying which tool should be preferred.

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