apple_files_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra behavior: the listing is non-recursive, spans only one allowed folder, is bounded, and hides dotfiles by default — all traits the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single tight sentence with the safety qualifier front-loaded ahead of the scope details; every clause earns its place. Slightly too terse given the 0% schema coverage, but no wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, scope and defaults adequately, but leaves the allowed-folder restriction and the limit/hidden parameters undocumented for an agent to discover. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 burden for all three params. It gestures at each one ('one allowed folder' for path, 'bounded' for limit, 'hidden entries excluded by default' for includeHidden) but never names them, gives no limit range, and does not explain the allowed-folder sandbox constraint.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('list one allowed folder') and adds the distinguishing scope constraint that it is bounded and non-recursive, which separates it from recursive traversal or the sibling apple_files_search substring search. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the use case (enumerate entries in a single directory) and its non-recursive scope rules out tree walking, but it never states when to prefer this over apple_files_search, apple_files_info, or apple_files_read_text. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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