finder_list

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed. It does not mention whether files are listed recursively, what file types are included, or if hidden files are shown. Since no annotations exist, the description should compensate but fails to.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loads the main action. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary context.

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, output schema, and any behavioral detail, the description is insufficient. It does not specify which directory is listed, leading to ambiguity for the agent.

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, so the schema coverage is 100%. However, the description does not explain why no parameters are needed (e.g., it lists the current directory). This falls short of adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (Finder directory), but it does not specify which directory is used (e.g., current, root, or requires a parameter). This omission makes the purpose somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finder_search. The description lacks context about which directory it lists or how it differs from search tools.

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