finder_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does add a meaningful behavioral trait (Spotlight-free) and implies a read-only operation. However, it omits critical details such as how the target directory is determined, whether the listing is recursive, or whether hidden files are included, leaving clear gaps.

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 wastes no words. 'Lists files and folders in a directory' immediately conveys the action and resource, while '(Spotlight-free)' adds key differentiation without excess. It is an excellent example of minimal yet effective structure.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not specify which directory is listed, how the directory is chosen (current Finder window, home folder, etc.), or what the return format is. For a tool with no parameters, this ambiguity is a significant gap that could cause incorrect usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The description avoids introducing any parameter-related confusion, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Lists files and folders in a directory'. The parenthetical '(Spotlight-free)' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'finder_search' by explicitly signaling that it does not use Spotlight, which helps differentiate from similar file-listing tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '(Spotlight-free)' hint implies avoiding Spotlight, but there is no direct statement about when to prefer this over finder_search, file_list, or other file-related tools. Sibling context exists but is not leveraged.

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