List remote files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the constraint 'inside configured remote roots,' which is useful, but it does not mention return format, pagination, or limit behavior. Beyond the annotations and the remote-roots constraint, transparency is limited.

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 states the core function in a front-loaded manner. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only listing operation.

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?

With two parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a minimal viable baseline. It tells the agent this is a scoped directory listing, but omits practical details like how remote roots are referenced in the path, whether the listing is recursive, and what the response structure looks like. Given the sibling tools, some ambiguity about edge cases remains.

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 carries the full burden for explaining parameters. However, it does not explain what 'path' should be relative to, how the 'limit' interacts with listing, or any other parameter semantics. The schema only provides types and defaults, which is insufficient given the complete absence of descriptive text.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'one directory' and scopes it to 'configured remote roots,' which distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (file content) and search_files. However, it could be more explicit that it lists directory entries rather than the directory itself, so a small clarity gap remains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_files, transfer_files, or search_files. The description only states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary hints, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the tool name and sibling list.

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