fs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Paths cannot escape the root' and 'lease_id optional', giving behavioral security and invocation context. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value: verb, resource, scope, safety, and constraint. No fluff or 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits critical operational details such as how max_entries behaves, what project defaults are, and the semantics of lease_id. Given the moderate complexity (4 params) and zero schema descriptions, the description is only partially 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 compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'lease_id optional' and that paths cannot escape the root. It does not explain the purpose of path, project, or max_entries (e.g., what max_entries limits or what project refers to). This is insufficient given zero schema coverage.

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 directory entries under a registered project root, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds important scope constraints (project root, cannot escape root) that distinguish it from sibling file tools like fs_read or fs_search.

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 implies usage for listing directories but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like fs_read or fs_search. It provides context (project root, read-only) but lacks exclusion or alternative guidance.

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