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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is fast and does not scan file contents, but omits read-only nature, permission requirements, recursion behavior, and return format. This is minimum viable for a simple list 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to purpose or scope, making it appropriately concise.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should ideally cover more behavioral context. It explains the core listing scope, but does not describe return values, recursion, or whether the result includes hidden/ignored files by default. Given the simple read operation and complete parameter schema, it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description references glob patterns and file types generically but adds no syntax, defaults, or behavior beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'list files'. It adds scope ('matching glob patterns or file types') and a differentiator from content-oriented siblings: 'without scanning contents'. An agent can distinguish this from search without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'without scanning contents' implies the tool is for name/path listing rather than content search, which gives context against the sibling 'search'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is only implied.

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