file_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic read-only operation but does not disclose details such as whether hidden files are included, how the output is formatted, or any potential side effects. The description is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the core behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is concise, readable, and every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the core operation is simple and self-explanatory. Although it does not describe return format or limitations, the simplicity of the tool and the schema coverage make the description sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (path and details), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-related meaning; it only describes the overall tool purpose. The schema already explains the parameters adequately, so no further compensation is needed.

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 a specific verb 'list' and resource 'files and directories' with a clear scope 'at a given path on the router.' It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like file_read (which reads content) and file_search (which searches for files), making the tool's purpose 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 clearly implies the tool is for exploring directory contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_read or file_delete. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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