list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the basic function without exposing any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention that it traverses directories, that output includes files and directories (or just files), whether it returns a tree or flat list, or any caveats like permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and purpose, making it highly scannable and 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, both fully described in the schema, and no output schema. The description states the core purpose and intended usage context, which is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it. It doesn't detail return format, but for a listing tool that's often implicit. Overall, it's adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% (both parameters are fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides defaults and explanation, so the description does not need to compensate. No extra semantic value is added.

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 action ('List files') and the resource ('in the workspace'), with a specific purpose ('so the assistant can inspect the project before reading or summarizing it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads content) and search_context (which searches).

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 indicates when to use it: 'before reading or summarizing it' – providing a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer it should be used first in a project inspection workflow.

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