finder_list_files

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuine behavioral value: it will not follow directory symlinks and it requires no permissions ('[permissions: none]'). It omits pagination/ordering context tied to limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the scope and symlink constraint, followed by compact version/permission metadata. No wasted prose, though the bracketed tag is tangential to tool selection.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, symlink behavior, and permissions. The undocumented limit parameter and lack of ordering/pagination context leave a gap for a 500-max listing tool.

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 only 50% (path is documented, limit has an empty description), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain what limit controls or how it interacts with the non-recursive listing.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (immediate directory entries) with scope qualifiers ('within authorized roots', 'without following directory symlinks'). The 'immediate' (non-recursive) wording implicitly separates it from finder_search_files, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any reference to the obvious alternative finder_search_files. The agent must infer that this is for shallow listings and search is for recursive lookups.

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