rba_list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely states 'List files' without revealing recursion behavior, handling of directories, maxEntries limits, or output format. The presence of recursive and maxEntries parameters in the schema is not reflected in the description.

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 concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While every word earns its place, the single sentence lacks structural elements like parameter examples or behavioral notes, making it brief but not sufficiently helpful.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, this simple one-liner is inadequate. The tool has 3 parameters and potential nuances like recursion and entry limits, but the description does not mention them or the expected output, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description adds no meaning to the input schema parameters (path, recursive, maxEntries). Schema description coverage is 0%, and there is no mention of what these parameters control. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are not self-explanatory in terms of semantics.

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 'List files inside the RBA workspace' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files inside the RBA workspace'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools that perform different operations (e.g., rba_search_files, rba_read_file), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_search_files or rba_read_file. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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