msf_file_list

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only and open-world operation. The description adds useful context that it lists a local directory with pagination, but does not describe permission requirements, error behavior, or any other operational traits beyond what is already structured.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It communicates the core action, pagination behavior, and intended use efficiently.

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 directory-listing tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete. The remaining gaps are mainly around explicit parameter and error semantics rather than overall call comprehension.

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 more weight. It broadly indicates that 'path' is a local directory and that pagination is supported, which maps loosely to limit/offset, but it does not explain parameter semantics in detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing a local directory, with pagination and a practical purpose of locating scripts and artifacts. It is clear enough to distinguish from file read/write siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'to locate scripts and output artifacts' implies a usage context, and 'pagination' suggests larger directory scans. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as msf_file_read for reading an individual file.

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