list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope ('files and directories') but gives no behavioral detail such as recursion, hidden-file handling, sorting, or error behavior. Given the low bar set by annotations, this is minimal.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. The action and target are immediately stated, earning the highest mark for conciseness.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, the return format (e.g., file names vs. full paths, directories mixed with files) is not described, and edge cases like nonexistent paths are unaddressed.

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 single parameter 'path' has no schema description, and the description only repeats 'at a path' without explaining accepted formats (absolute/relative), trailing slashes, or whether a directory is required. The description provides barely more than the schema's type and title information.

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 clear verb ('list') and resource ('files and directories at a path'), matching the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like get_directory_tree or search_files, which could also list directory contents.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_directory_tree or search_files. The context of 'list files and directories at a path' is implied enough for obvious cases, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit routing are provided.

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