appcrane_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, bound to safe roots (/app and /data only), and returns the directory listing as text. This is comprehensive for a simple listing tool.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, safety, and output format. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list files), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, safety constraints, and output format. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the return type as text, which is sufficient. The description is complete for effective usage.

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 coverage is 67% (path and stage have descriptions, slug does not). The description reinforces the path constraint (must start with /app or /data) but does not add much beyond what the schema already provides. For slug, no additional semantics are given, so the parameter description is not significantly enriched.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'files inside a running app container at a specific path'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like appcrane_cat or appcrane_cp by focusing on listing directory contents. The purpose is 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 gives a specific use case: 'Use to verify what actually got built / what files made it into the deployed image.' It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct comparison to siblings. The context of safe roots and read-only further guides appropriate usage.

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