List files

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the path-resolution model: absolute paths are only allowed when RACCOON_FILESYSTEM_UNRESTRICTED=1, and relative paths anchor at RACCOON_ROOT. That environmental constraint is genuinely useful and not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the path-resolution caveat immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, lowering the burden, but the description still omits how `limit` behaves, what `deviceId`/`deviceName` do, and whether results are paginated. For a tool with four undocumented parameters this is only minimally adequate.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially covers `dir` (absolute vs relative resolution). It says nothing about `limit` (1–1,000,000), `deviceId`, or `deviceName`, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List one directory"), which is more precise than the bare title. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling `list_directory`, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus `list_directory`, `fs_read_many`, or `get_file_info`. It states the path-resolution rule but never explains the selection context, leaving the agent to guess between competing filesystem tools.

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