List org files

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of conveying safety and behavior. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly say it doesn't modify state or require special permissions, and it doesn't hint at whether the return is a simple name list or a richer structure. Since there are no annotations, this is a notable gap for a tool that may be expected to be side-effect free.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action, resource, and scope. It could be slightly more informative, but it earns its place as a concise and well-structured line.

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, but it has no output schema, so the description should indicate what the return value looks like (file names, paths, etc.). It doesn't, and it also does not mention the default behavior of include_archive or what 'currently tracked' refers to. These are gaps an agent needs to call the tool correctly, making it incomplete despite low complexity.

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 only parameter, include_archive, has a complete description in the input schema (schema coverage is 100%). The description doesn't add any extra nuance beyond the schema, but also doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient. Baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 what tool does: 'List the org files currently tracked in the org data directory.' It names a specific resource (org files) and location (org data directory), which helps distinguish it from siblings like org_list_todos or org_agenda. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or call out what it is not, so it misses the highest level of distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It neither explains what kind of listing this returns (e.g., file names vs full paths) nor mentions whether the agent should consider modular or filtering options such as the include_archive parameter. The description also doesn't indicate scenarios where a sibling like org_read_file or org_list_todos would be more appropriate.

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