list_files

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the result set is restricted to 'allowed' files and is 'bounded and paginated', which informs the agent about permission boundaries and pagination behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination constraint appears immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple listing tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: path scope, allowed-file boundary, and pagination. It does not explain cursor mechanics in detail, but the output schema and parameter constraints fill most gaps, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'path' is workspace-relative and that results are bounded/paginated, which hints at 'limit' and 'cursor'. However, it does not explicitly explain how cursor pagination works or what the default limit behavior is, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('List'), a concrete object ('allowed files and directories'), and a scope ('workspace-relative path'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file_range (reading file contents) and search_text (searching contents), so an agent can understand the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 description implies the tool is for exploring allowed files and directories under a path, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_info or read_file_range. The usage context is clear but no exclusions or sibling routing guidance is provided.

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