list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is 'CHEAP', returns paths only, and excludes metadata and bodies—key behavioral traits for an agent deciding whether to call it. It doesn't mention recursion, directory inclusion, or error cases, but for a simple list operation the most relevant behaviors are covered.

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—one short sentence plus a comparison—yet packs in the cost profile, output scope, and routing guidance. It is front-loaded with 'CHEAP' and every clause earns its place.

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—one optional parameter and an existing output schema—the description covers most essential context: cost, return type, and when to prefer an alternative. It does not explain the prefix parameter, but that gap is already captured under parameter semantics. Overall, an agent can select and use this tool correctly with the provided information.

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%, and the description does not mention the `prefix` parameter at all, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The parameter name and default are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero meaning beyond them.

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 makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear: it returns paths only, implying it lists files. It also distinguishes itself from `search` by noting that `search` answers context questions better, providing sibling differentiation. However, it relies on the tool name 'list_files' for the verb and never explicitly states 'lists file paths' in the description itself.

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 explicitly names `search` as a better alternative for context questions, which implies this tool should be used when cheap path enumeration is needed. This gives clear comparative guidance, but it could be more explicit about specific scenarios (e.g., 'use when you only need file paths').

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