server_file_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: SERVER_MCP_FILE_ROOTS may restrict visible folders, and as_root=true escalates via sudo. It does not state whether the operation is read-only/safe by default, what happens on permission errors, or how large directories behave, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, followed by short constraint sentences that each add information. The phrasing 'as_root=true uses sudo' is slightly terse, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the listing scope, sandbox limits, and three of four parameters. The unexplained 'host' parameter and the absence of any usage-vs-sibling guidance are the only omissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: path (empty = stacks folder, no leading slash = relative to it), depth (1 to 4 levels), and as_root (uses sudo). Only 'host' is left completely unexplained, which is the one clear hole.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List files and folders on the Docker host') and enumerates the returned columns (type, mode, owner, size, date, path). An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only listing from siblings like server_file_read, server_file_write, or docker_copy.

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 supplies default behavior (empty path = stacks folder, relative path resolves there) and the root sandbox constraint, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over server_file_read or docker_stack_file, nor any preconditions or exclusions; usage must be inferred from the name.

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