list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic read-only behavior (listing), which is safe and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the listing is recursive, includes hidden files, or how errors are handled (e.g., if path does not exist). This is acceptable for a simple listing tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and includes necessary context (sandbox). Every word contributes, achieving high conciseness.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the return format, whether listing is recursive, or behavior on invalid paths. Given the lack of output schema, more details about output and edge cases would improve completeness, though the tool is simple enough that the current description is minimally viable.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (sandbox_id: 'Sandbox ID', path: 'Directory path to list (default: /)'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool lists files and directories at a given path in a sandbox, providing a specific verb ('list') and resource ('files and directories at a given path in a sandbox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file and write_file by focusing on listing directory contents rather than file content operations.

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: when you need to list directory contents in a sandbox. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as read_file or run_command. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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