list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses that the tool reads the filesystem directly, reports file sizes and modification times, hides dot-directories and dot-files, rejects folders with such components, and caps results with a default of 200 and a hard cap of 1000, including truncation signaling. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose and key differentiator, followed by a sibling comparison and then precise behavioral details. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity. It covers all parameters, defaults, edge cases like hidden files and truncation, and usage context relative to sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and nothing essential is missing 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters in the Args section: `folder`, `pattern`, `recursive`, and `limit`. It explains defaults, glob semantics, recursion behavior, and the limit cap, adding real meaning beyond the raw 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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Browse the vault filesystem (`ls`-style), including non-markdown files.' It names the resource and scope, and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling `list_notes`, which 'lists indexed markdown only.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from related 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?

The description explicitly positions the tool relative to `list_notes` and `read_file`, explaining that `list_files` reads the filesystem directly and reports sizes 'so you can gauge a binary before `read_file`.' It also gives concrete behavioral context such as default listing behavior, glob filtering, recursion, and hidden-file handling, making usage conditions clear.

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