list_files

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states the return format (list of dicts with path, name, is_dir) and defaults for directory and pattern, which is useful. However, it omits mention of the max_entries parameter, does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation (though implied), and leaves ambiguity about whether directories are included despite 'list files' and the is_dir return field.

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 extremely concise, using only three lines to convey purpose, parameters, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose statement. This is an example of efficient writing.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values more than it does. However, the missing max_entries explanation and lack of usage guidance make the description only partially complete for a tool with three parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains directory and pattern meaningfully, but completely omits max_entries. This leaves one of three parameters undocumented, a clear gap in the description's ability to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'List files in a work directory' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads file content) and list_jobs (which lists jobs). The scope is well-defined and unambiguous.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like read_file or list_jobs. The parameter explanations are more about syntax than usage context.

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